Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 35

JOSEPHUS'S INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE

LOUIS

H.

FELDMAN

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS


Berkeley Los Angeles London

University o f California Press Berkeley and L o s Angeles, California University o f California Press, Ltd. London, England 1998 by T h e Regents o f the University o f California

Library o f C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a Feldman, Louis H . Josephus's interpretation o f the B i b l e / L o u i s H . Feldman. p. cm.(Hellenistic culture and society) Includes bibliographic references and index I S B N 0-520-20853-6 (alk. paper) 1. Josephus, Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae. criticism. Biography. DS116J744.F45 22i.6'o92dc2i I. Title. 1998 97-36613 r97 II. Series 2. J u d a i s m A p o l o g e t i c works History and 3. J e w s H i s t o r y T o 70 A.D .Historiography. 4. Heroes in the B i b l e

Printed in the U n i t e d States o f A m e r i c a 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

T h e p a p e r used in this publication meets the m i n i m u m requirements o f A m e r i c a n National Standards for Information S c i e n c e s P e r m a n e n c e o f Paper for Printed L i b r a r y Materials, A N S I Z39.48-1984.

C H A P T E R

F I F T E E N

David

I n J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n t h e r e is a l m o s t n o figure, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f M o s e s himself, w h o is o f g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e t h a n D a v i d , n o t o n l y b e c a u s e his b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y is s o c h a r m i n g b u t a l s o b e c a u s e h e is r e g a r d e d as t h e a u t h o r o f t h e B o o k o f P s a l m s (Baba Batra 14b) (see S a r n a 1 9 7 1 , 1 3 : 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 ) , w h i c h h a s p r o v e n so p o p u l a r , and,

a b o v e a l l , b e c a u s e h e is s a i d t o b e t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e m e s s i a h (see F l u s s e r 1 9 7 1 b ) . A n d y e t , J o s e p h u s , i n his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e i n t h e Jewish Antiquities, w a s c o n fronted w i t h a d i l e m m a w h e n h e c a m e to the personality o f D a v i d .


1

O n the o n e

h a n d , D a v i d e x e m p l i f i e d so m a n y o f t h e q u a l i t i e s t h a t w o u l d a p p e a l t o his p a g a n a u d i e n c e i n his a t t e m p t t o d e f e n d t h e J e w s a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e s o f t h e i r c a l u m n i a tors. B u t , o n the other h a n d , J o s e p h u s himself w a s descended from the Has-

m o n e a n kings r a t h e r t h a n from the line o f D a v i d ; a n d , moreover, a n y reference to D a v i d as t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e m e s s i a h m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e R o m a n s as e n c o u r a g i n g r e v o l t , s i n c e t h e m e s s i a h w a s g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as a p o l i t i 2

1. T h e r e has been nothing even approaching a full-length study o f Josephus's portrait o f D a v i d . T h e only treatments thus far have been v e r y brief summaries in R a p p a p o r t 1930, 4 9 - 5 5 (which simply lists, in a far from exhaustive fashion, but citing rabbinic parallels in several instances, a n u m b e r o f places w h e r e Josephus departs from the Bible); H o l l a d a y 1977, 75-77; Wojcik 1980, 22-25; a n d D a n i e l 1981, 79-80. M o s t recendy, Villalba i V a r n e d a 1986, 268-71, simply lists the passages w h e r e Josephus adds to, omits from, or otherwise modifies the biblical account, without explaining w h y he does so in each instance. N o n e o f these accounts even notes, let alone tries to explain, the relatively diminished importance o f D a v i d in Josephus. T h e typical point o f view seems to b e that Josephus's account o f D a v i d contains litde that is noteworthy, as B e n t w i c h 1914, 157, asserts. 2. N e u s n e r 1984 argues that the messiah concept is insignificant in most early rabbinic works; yet this m a y b e d u e to the general eagerness o f the rabbis not to provoke the R o m a n s into abrogating the special privileges enjoyed b y the Jews. I f so, Josephus w o u l d b e in accord with this rabbinic trend; a n d this w o u l d b e explained b y his desire not to offend his R o m a n benefactors, since a messiah, ipso facto, implied revolt against R o m e with a v i e w to establishing an independent state. A s to whether these messianic expectations were avoided or, m o r e likely, suppressed in the composition o f the M i s h n a h , it 537

538

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

c a l l e a d e r w h o w o u l d reestablish a n i n d e p e n d e n t J e w i s h state. H e n c e , w e c a n u n d e r s t a n d t h e d e l i b e r a t e a m b i g u i t y o f J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t t h a t " D a n i e l also w r o t e a b o u t t h e e m p i r e o f the R o m a n s a n d t h a t it [ a m b i g u o u s ] w o u l d b e d e s o l a t e d b y t h e m [ a m b i g u o u s ] " (Ant. 10.276). I n o r d e r n o t to offend the R o m a n s , h e c r y p t i c a l l y says t h a t h e d o e s n o t t h i n k it p r o p e r to e x p l a i n the m e a n i n g o f the stone in D a n . 2 : 3 4 - 3 5 , 4 5 , " s i n c e I a m e x p e c t e d to w r i t e o f w h a t is p a s t a n d d o n e a n d n o t o f w h a t is to b e " (Ant. 10. 210). T h e stone, as M a r c u s 1 9 3 4 - 3 7 , 6:175, n. c, h a s c o m m e n t e d , w a s r e g a r d e d in a n c i e n t J e w i s h e x e g e s i s as a s y m b o l o f the m e s s i a h , w h o w o u l d p u t a n e n d t o the R o m a n E m p i r e (Ant. 10.210).
4

I n fact, J o s e p h u s n e v e r m e n t i o n s D a v i d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the m e s s i a h . H e is c o n t e n t to s a y m e r e l y t h a t D a v i d ' s h o u s e will b e g l o r i o u s a n d r e n o w n e d (Ant. 7.94). W h e r e a s in the b i b l i c a l text, the p r o p h e t N a t h a n assures D a v i d t h a t G - d will establish the t h r o n e o f his k i n g d o m f o r e v e r (2 S a m . 7:31; 1 C h r o n . 17:12), J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y that D a v i d r e j o i c e d g r e a d y to k n o w t h a t the r o y a l p o w e r w o u l d r e m a i n w i t h his d e s c e n d a n t s , w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t this w o u l d b e f o r e v e r (Ant. 7.94). I n contrast, J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y P s e u d o - P h i l o r e m a r k s that the p r o p h e t S a m u e l , m i s t a k e n l y t h i n k i n g t h a t E l i a b , the oldest s o n o f Jesse, w a s the o n e to b e a n o i n t e d k i n g , d e c l a r e s , " B e h o l d , the h o l y o n e , t h e a n o i n t e d o f the L - r d " (sanctus christus=meshiah ha-qadosh), c l e a r l y referring t o h i m as m e s s i a h , xpioros.
5

" a n o i n t e d " (Bib. Ant. 59.2), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s a v o i d s the w o r d

E v e n in t e r m s o f s h e e r l e n g t h o f his a c c o u n t , w e c a n see t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s s o m e w h a t d e e m p h a s i z e d D a v i d , as c o m p a r e d w i t h S a u l , in t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f the n a r r a t i v e d e a l i n g o n l y w i t h D a v i d . M o s t significant, w e m a y n o t e t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s


6

should be recalled that the M i s h n a h is primarily a codification o f law, and hence such discussion w o u l d really be a digression in it. 3. For a s u m m a r y o f rabbinic views on messianic expectations, see Blidstein 1971, 11:1410-12. 4. Josephus could not agree with the rabbinic picture o f an eschatological D a v i d w h o , in the days to come, w o u l d be the viceroy o f the messiah, likewise n a m e d D a v i d (Sanhedrin 98b), let alone o f a D a v i d w h o w o u l d live forever (Midrash Psalms 5.52, 57.298, 75.340; 2 Avot de-Rabbi Nathan 45.125). 5. T h e r e can be n o doubt that the n a m e o f D a v i d was b y Josephus's time intimately connected with the messianic age. A l r e a d y the prophet H o s e a declares that "afterward shall the children o f Israel return a n d seek the L - r d their G - d a n d D a v i d their king" (3:5). T h e very fact that M a t t h e w (1:1-17) a n d L u k e (3:23-38), contemporaries o f Josephus's, trace the ancestry o f Jesus qua messiah back to D a v i d is a strong indication that such a g e n e a l o g y was expected for a messiah as a matter o f course by this time. Indeed, the messianic concept is almost never mentioned without adding a reference to the k i n g d o m o f the house o f D a v i d , so that the appellative "son o f D a v i d , " or even " D a v i d " itself, b e c o m e s almost the personal n a m e o f the messiah. W e m a y call attention, in particular, to the words o f R a b b i J u d a h the Prince at the end o f the second century, presumably reflecting an older and popular tradition: " D a v i d , king o f Israel, is alive a n d vigorous" (Rosh Hashanah 25a). 6. T h u s , he has 1,153 lines o f G r e e k in the L o e b text in his version o f the story o f Saul alone (Ant. 6.45-156, 250-70, 327-50, 368-78) as c o m p a r e d with 427 lines in the H e b r e w a n d 673 lines in the Rahlfs edition o f the Septuagint (1935), giving a ratio o f 2.70:1 for Josephus as opposed to the H e b r e w and 1:71:1 for Josephus as opposed to the Septuagint (the ratio o f the Septuagint to the H e b r e w is 1.58:1). O n the other hand, for D a v i d alone (Ant. 6.157-92, 224-34, 239-49, 7 5 292-309, 3 2 1 - 2 6 , 351-67,7.394), Josephus has 3,330 lines, as opposed to 1,570 in the H e b r e w a n d 2,478 in the Septuagint,
2 J

DAVID

539

e n c o m i u m for S a u l (Ant. 6.343-50) o f 55 lines is a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 V t i m e s as l o n g


2

as t h a t o f D a v i d (Ant. 7 . 3 9 0 - 9 1 ) , w h i c h c o m p r i s e s 15 7 lines.
2

D e s p i t e t h e o b v i o u s s i g n i f i c a n c e o f D a v i d , as a n c e s t o r o f the m e s s i a h , for t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y m o v e m e n t s t h a t s p e a r h e a d e d the J e w i s h r e v o l t a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s , o b v i o u s l y sensitive t o a c h a r g e o f disloyalty if h e w e r e to m e n t i o n t h e inf l u e n c e o f t h e m e s s i a n i c i d e a , totally suppresses t h e m e s s i a n i c a s p e c t o f t h e revolt a n d refers t o D a v i d o n l y i n f r e q u e n d y in the Jewish War, n o t i n g m e r e l y D a v i d ' s w e a l t h (War 1.61); t h e fact t h a t h e w a s the father o f S o l o m o n , the first b u i l d e r o f t h e T e m p l e (War 5.137) ( i m p l y i n g t h a t S o l o m o n is m o r e f a m o u s ) ; t h e fact t h a t h e a n d S o l o m o n built t h e first w a l l o f J e r u s a l e m (War 5.143); a n d t h e i n c i d e n t in w h i c h D a v i d e x p e l l e d t h e C a n a a n i t e p o p u l a t i o n o f J e r u s a l e m a n d e s t a b l i s h e d his o w n p e o p l e t h e r e (War 6.439).

DAVID IN PHILO, RABBINIC L I T E R A T U R E , AND PAGAN L I T E R A T U R E In contrast to Josephus's d o w n g r a d i n g o f David's importance, w e m a y note that P h i l o , w h o g e n e r a l l y h a s v e r y little to s a y a b o u t the b o o k s o f t h e B i b l e o t h e r t h a n t h e P e n t a t e u c h , elevates h i m , r e f e r r i n g to h i m n o t m e r e l y as o n e o f t h e disciples (yvwpLfjLOL) o f M o s e s (De Confusione Linguarum 11.39) (iraipoi,
a n

d as o n e o f his c o m p a n i o n s

De Somniis 2 . 3 7 . 2 4 5 ) w o r d s that, as G o o d e n o u g h ( 1 9 5 3 - 6 8 , 9:94) h a s (De Plantatione 9.39) a n d h e n c e a m e m b e r o f t h e m y s t i c

n o t e d , P h i l o c o m m o n l y uses in a n a l l e g o r i c a l s e n s e b u t as a m e m b e r o f t h e i n n e r circle o f M o s e s , a diaodjrrjs g u i l d (dlaoos), a t e r m also u s e d , in particular, o f d e v o t e e s o f D i o n y s u s in their r e v Kal Beiov epcora), w h i l e his w h o l e m i n d w a s s n a t c h e d u p in "insane passion," "madness," a t e r m used o f the B a c c h i c fleoWaio?, a

els. F o r P h i l o (ibid.), D a v i d in his P s a l m s w a s m o v e d to a n e c s t a s y o f h e a v e n l y a n d d i v i n e l o v e (ovpdviov h o l y f r e n z y (otorpos,

M a e n a d s ) (Euripides, Bacchae 665) b y a d i v i n e possession (dela Karoxrj), w h e r e i n h e f o u n d his g l a d n e s s in G - d a l o n e . I n d e e d , P h i l o refers to D a v i d as term that means "more than h u m a n " deaireaios II). (De Plantatione 7.29) (see L S J , 7 9 5 , s.v.

I n e v e n g r e a t e r c o n t r a s t to J o s e p h u s , the r a b b i s e l e v a t e D a v i d to t h e p o i n t w h e r e R a b b i A k i v a , a y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Josephus's, declares that o n the D a y o f J u d g m e n t , D a v i d will sit o n a t h r o n e a d j a c e n t to t h a t o f G - d (Sanhedrin 38b). E v e n his p u p i l Y o s e b e n H a l a f t a protests, s a y i n g , " A k i v a , h o w l o n g w i l l y o u p r o f a n e t h e S h e c h i n a h ? " (i.e., b y p l a c i n g a h u m a n b e i n g side b y side w i t h G - d ) . A

thus giving a ratio of 2.12:1 for Josephus as opposed to the Hebrew, a n d 1.34:1 for Josephus as opposed to the Septuagint (the ratio o f the Septuagint to the Hebrew is again 1.58:1). For the passages that involve both Saul and David (Ant. 6.192-223, 235-38, 272-91, 310-20, 7.1-6), there are 508 lines in Josephus, 260 lines in the Hebrew, a n d 402 in the Septuagint, thus giving ratios o f 1.95:1 for Josephus as against the H e b r e w and 1.26:1 for Josephus as against the Septuagint (the ratio of the Septuagint to the H e b r e w is almost exacdy the same as in the Saul pericope: 1.55:1).

540

JOSEPHUS'S

BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

late a g g a d a , p r e s u m a b l y b a s e d u p o n a n o l d e r tradition, h a s a s c e n a r i o w h e r e i n o n the D a y o f J u d g m e n t , at a g r e a t b a n q u e t p r e p a r e d b y G - d for the r i g h t e o u s , G - d offers the w i n e c u p for the r e c i t a t i o n o f g r a c e successively to A b r a h a m , I s a a c , J a c o b , M o s e s , a n d J o s h u a , e a c h o f w h o m d e c l a r e s h i m s e l f u n w o r t h y o f the h o n o r b e c a u s e o f sins h e h a s c o m m i t t e d . Finally, G - d t u r n s to D a v i d , w h o a c c e p t s the h o n o r (Beth Hamidrash [ed. Jellinek] 5 . 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 6.25-26]). H e n c e , w e see t h a t e s c h a t o l o g i c a l l y at least a c c o r d i n g to this tradition, D a v i d , despite his c r u e l t y t o w a r d the M o a b i t e s a n d the A m m o n i t e s , w h o m h e m a d e to pass t h r o u g h b r i c k kilns a n d u n d e r saws a n d a x e s o f i r o n (2 S a m . 12:31), a n d t o w a r d the sons o f R i z p a h , w h o m h e d e l i v e r e d to the G i b e o n i t e s to b e h a n g e d (2 S a m . 21:9), a n d despite, o f c o u r s e , the affair w i t h B a t h s h e b a (2 S a m . 1 1 : 2 - 2 7 ) , a p p e a r s to o c c u p y a p o s i t i o n s u p e r i o r e v e n to t h a t o f M o s e s himself. I n the T a l m u d , R a b b i H u n a (third c e n t u r y ) p o i n t s o u t t h a t S a u l s i n n e d o n l y o n c e , w h e r e a s D a v i d s i n n e d t w i c e (in b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e for the d e a t h o f U r i a h a n d in t a k i n g a census), a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o the t h i r d - c e n t u r y R a v , e v e n a t h i r d t i m e (in listening to the evil reports o f Z i b a a g a i n s t M e p h i b o s h e t h ) (Yoma 22b); a n d y e t these sins d i d n o t c a u s e his d o w n f a l l . P a g a n writers, o n the o t h e r h a n d , like J o s e p h u s , w e r e r e l u c t a n t to e n h a n c e the i m p o r t a n c e o f D a v i d . I n d e e d , w e find o n l y t h r e e e x t a n t references t o K i n g D a v i d in p a g a n w r i t e r s b e f o r e the s p r e a d o f Christianity, n a m e l y , in A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r in the first c e n t u r y B.C.E. (ap. C l e m e n t , Stromata, 1.21.130.3), w h o m e n t i o n s a T y r i a n a r c h i t e c t n a m e d H y p e r o n , w h o w a s b o r n o f a J u d a e a n m o t h e r o f the tribe o f D a v i d ; in N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ant. 7.101), w h o r e m a r k s t h a t A d a d o s ( B e n - h a d a d ) , the r u l e r o f D a m a s c u s , w a g e d w a r a g a i n s t D a v i d ; a n d a g a i n in N i c o l a u s (ap. Ant. 1 6 . 1 7 9 - 8 3 ) , w h o n o t e s t h a t H e r o d o p e n e d D a v i d ' s t o m b in o r d e r to take the w e a l t h that w a s b u r i e d there. E v e n in these t h r e e references, it will b e n o t e d , t h e r e is n o t h i n g said in p r a i s e o r defense o f D a v i d , despite the fact t h a t b o t h A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r a n d N i c o l a u s h a d c o n s i d e r a b l e k n o w l e d g e o f the J e w s a n d o f J e w i s h h i s t o r y a n d g e n e r a l l y l o o k e d u p o n t h e m w i t h favor. I n t h e c a s e o f N i c o l a u s , s u c h n e g l e c t m a y b e b e c a u s e N i c o l a u s w a s s e c r e t a r y to K i n g H e r o d the G r e a t , w h o s e n o n - D a v i d i c d e s c e n t surely r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s a b o u t his l e g i t i m a c y as a J e w ish ruler. It is significant, in this c o n n e c t i o n , that w h e n H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a (ap. D i o d o r u s 40.3.3) refers to the f o u n d i n g o f J e r u s a l e m , h e m e n t i o n s , n o t D a v i d , w h o w a s the figure responsible, a c c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , for the c o n q u e s t o f J e r u s a l e m , but Moses.
7

DAVID'S QUALITIES A s in his portraits o f o t h e r b i b l i c a l figures, J o s e p h u s builds u p D a v i d b y n o t i n g his g e n e a l o g y , his a p p e a r a n c e , his w e a l t h , a n d his possession o f the four c a r d i n a l

7. A l e x a n d e r 1:227-60.

Polyhistor wrote a Tlepi

'IovSaicav: for the fragments a n d discussion, see Stern

1974-84, 1:157-64. O n Nicolaus's knowledge o f the Jews, see W a c h o l d e r 1962 and Stern 1974-84,

DAVID

541

v i r t u e s w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e fifth v i r t u e , piety, as w e l l as hospitality, generosity, a n d gratefulness. T o r o u n d o u t his p o r t r a i t , J o s e p h u s d e p i c t s D a v i d as a p o e t . It is significant t h a t i n t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w h e n S a m u e l is t o l d t o select a k i n g f r o m a m o n g t h e sons o f Jesse t o t a k e t h e p l a c e o f S a u l , G - d d e c l a r e s t h a t h e h a s r e j e c t e d Jesse's eldest s o n , a l t h o u g h S a m u e l ' s first i n c l i n a t i o n w a s t o select h i m , b e c a u s e w h e r e a s m e n l o o k a t t h e o u t e r a p p e a r a n c e , G - d sees t h e h e a r t (1 S a m . 16:7). I n J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f this p a s s a g e , G - d states t h a t h e is s e e k i n g o n e w h o is d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n p i e t y (evoefteia), j u s t i c e (oiKaioavvrj), (Ant. 6.160). fortitude (dvSpela), a n d o b e KOLXXOS)

d i e n c e (7Ti0c6), o f w h i c h qualities b e a u t y o f soul ( T O rrjs iftvxrjs . . .

consists

Genealogy T h e g r e a t h e r o m u s t b e w e l l - b o r n . T h e r a b b i s , w e m a y n o t e , g i v e D a v i d a v e r y dist i n g u i s h e d a n c e s t r y (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4:82), t r a c i n g his l i n e a g e b a c k t o M i r i a m (Sifre Numbers 78); t o O t h n i e l , t h e first j u d g e i n Israel (ibid.); a n d t o B o a z , w h o is identified w i t h I b z a n , t h e j u d g e o f B e t h l e h e m (Baba Batra 91a). H i s g r a n d father O b e d d e v o t e d his life totally t o t h e s e r v i c e o f G - d , h e n c e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e ness o f his n a m e , " s e r v a n t . " B u t J o s e p h u s is careful t o soft-pedal D a v i d ' s g e n e a l ogy, so t h a t w h e n h e tells t h e story o f R u t h , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t O b e d b e g a t Jesse a n d t h a t Jesse b e g a t D a v i d ( R u t h 4:22), J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s t h e p a s s a g e j u s t e n o u g h t o g i v e D a v i d a d i s t i n g u i s h e d a n c e s t r y b u t w i t h o u t stressing it unduly. H e n c e , his s t a t e m e n t is: " O f O b e d w a s b o r n Jesse, a n d o f h i m D a v i d , w h o b e c a m e k i n g a n d b e q u e a t h e d his d o m i n i o n t o his p o s t e r i t y for t w e n t y - o n e g e n e r a t i o n s " (Ant. 5.336), p r e s u m a b l y i n o r d e r t o i n d i c a t e t h a t D a v i d ' s line w o u l d e n d after t w e n t y - o n e g e n e r a t i o n s , a n d t h a t o n e s h o u l d n o t e x p e c t a r e n e w a l o f the line thereafter. A s t o D a v i d ' s father, Jesse, h e is d e p i c t e d in r a b b i n i c literature, i n a v i e w a s c r i b e d a l t e r n a t e l y t o t h e s e c o n d - c e n t u r y Palestinian O s h a i a h o r t h e fourthc e n t u r y B a b y l o n i a n R a v a a n d Z e v i d , as o n e o f the greatest s c h o l a r s o f his t i m e a n d as o n e o f t h e four w h o d i e d free o f all sin (Berakot 58a; Shabbat 55b). J o s e p h u s m i g h t , like t h e G o s p e l o f L u k e (3:23-38), h a v e t r a c e d D a v i d ' s l i n e a g e b a c k t o A d a m o r , like t h e G o s p e l o f M a t t h e w ( 1 : 1 - 1 7 ) , t o A b r a h a m , o r at least t o J u d a h ; b u t J o s e p h u s carefully a v o i d s d o i n g s o , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e it w o u l d h a v e i m p l i e d t h a t D a v i d w a s t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e m e s s i a h . I n fact, J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o e m p h a s i z e , rather, t h e m o d e s t o r i g i n s o f D a v i d , d e c l a r i n g t h a t his w h o l e p u r p o s e i n i n c l u d i n g t h e story o f R u t h i n a h i s t o r i c a l w o r k , t o w h i c h t h e story w o u l d s e e m t o h a v e little r e l e v a n c e , is to s h o w h o w e a s y it is for G - d t o p r o m o t e e v e n o r d i n a r y (eTrirvxdvras) David. J o s e p h u s ' s d o w n g r a d i n g o f D a v i d m a y b e s e e n in t h e e p i t h e t nak, "child," " l a d , " w h i c h h e uses o f h i m a t t h e t i m e o f his a n o i n t i n g b y S a m u e l (Ant. 6.164). T h i s is in c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e r a b b i n i c v i e w t h a t D a v i d w a s t w e n t y - e i g h t at t h a t t i m e folk, s p r u n g f r o m s u c h m o d e s t ancestry, t o a r a n k as illustrious as t h a t t o w h i c h H e r a i s e d

542

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

(Seder Olam 12) (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 6:248, n. 18). T h e w o r d irais c o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t D a v i d w a s a slave, a m e a n i n g it h a s in t h e War (1.82 [bis] a n d 1.340) a n d t e n t i m e s in t h e Antiquities, i n c l u d i n g 7.330 (in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h D a v i d ' s servants), as w e l l as o n c e in the Life (223), a l t h o u g h it s h o u l d b e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e w o r d a p p e a r s 98 t i m e s in t h e War, 762 t i m e s in the Antiquities, a n d 20 t i m e s in the Life in the sense o f c h i l d . W h e n S a u l seeks s o m e o n e t o c u r e his disorder, the H e b r e w speaks o f D a v i d as a m a n o f v a l o r a n d a m a n o f w a r (1 S a m . 16:18), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s d e scribes h i m as a m e r e b o y (eri irais) in y e a r s (Ant. 6.167), a l t h o u g h a short t i m e later, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , h e is d e s c r i b e d as a y o u t h (veavloKos) (Ant. 6.194). Appearance J o s e p h u s c o n s t a n d y stresses, in several e x t r a b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e s , t h e h a n d s o m e n e s s o f his h e r o e s . I n i n t r o d u c i n g D a v i d , the H e b r e w says t h a t h e w a s r u d d y
c 8

('ademoni),

w i t h beautiful eyes (yefeh einayim), a n d g o o d l y (tov) t o l o o k u p o n (1 S a m . 16:12). T h e S e p t u a g i n t r e n d e r s the w o r d " r u d d y " b y irvppaKrjs, "fiery r e d " ; J o s e p h u s , in his actually "yellow," p a r a p h r a s e , s p e a k s o f D a v i d as a c h i l d as b e i n g r u d d y (gavdos, (yopyos,

w i t h a t i n g e o f r e d ; "fair," " g o l d e n " ) in skin (xpodv), w i t h eyes t h a t w e r e p i e r c i n g " g r i m , " " f i e r c e , " " t e r r i b l e , " a t e r m u s e d b y A e s c h y l u s , Seven against Thebes 537, a n d E u r i p i d e s , Phoenissae 146, w i t h r e f e r e n c e to P a r t h e n o p a e u s , the s o n o f M e l e a g e r a n d A t a l a n t a , w h o w a s o n e o f the h e r o e s w h o m a r c h e d a g a i n s t T h e b e s ) (Ant. 6 . 1 6 4 ) . J o s e p h u s p e r h a p s uses a v 0 o V h e r e t o r e m i n d r e a d e r s o f E s a u ' s n i c k n a m e E d o m ("red"), w h i c h , in fact, J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s in t e r m s o f the " t a w n y " (av96s) p o t t a g e t h a t J a c o b g a v e h i m in e x c h a n g e for his rights as firstborn son (Ant. 2.2 a n d 3). H e n c e , far f r o m a s s o c i a t i n g D a v i d w i t h the m e s s i a h w h o will o v e r t h r o w the R o m a n E m p i r e , J o s e p h u s m a y r a t h e r b e c o n n e c t i n g D a v i d w i t h R o m e , w h i c h w a s itself said to b e identified w i t h E s a u o r E d o m .
1 1 9

T h e use o f the a d j e c -

8. T h e first occurrence o f nais in extant literature, according to LSJ, s.v. I l l , with the m e a n i n g o f "slave" or "servant" is in the fifth century B.C.E . in Aeschylus (Choephoroe 653) and in Aristophanes (Acharnians 395); and it appears with this m e a n i n g frequendy thereafter. Finley 1980, 96, remarks on the d e h u m a n i z i n g connotation o f the term, w h i c h h a d its counterpart in the term " b o y " in the South o f the United States. Aristophanes (Wasps 1297-98, 1307), as he notes, invents an e t y m o l o g y for this term from the w o r d iraUiv, "to beat," a j o k e that points to a harsh reality. See G i b b s and Feldman 1985-86, 295-96. A c c o r d i n g to an u n k n o w n midrash, quoted b y Talqut ha-Makiri, Ps. 118.28 (p. 214, ed. Buber), cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:246, n. 11, w h e n Jesse sought to have relations with one o f his slaves, his o w n wife disguised herself as the slave; and the child thus born, namely, D a v i d , was given out to be the son o f the freed slave. 9. T h e w o r d yopyos is found, in a doubtful reading, in Euripides (Supplicants, 322), where it refers to the fierce look o f the G o r g o n s , w h o turn people to stone with their gaze. 10. W e m a y here note that avQ6s is used by Josephus only for Esau, D a v i d , and (Ant. 4.79) the red heifer. H e n c e , the association with Esau is veritably unique. 11. T h e identification o f E d o m and R o m e in extant literature goes b a c k at least to the second century (Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 7.11, ed. M a n d e l b a u m , p. 134). T h e identification o f Esau with R o m e likewise goes back, at least so far as extant literature is concerned, to the middle o f the second century (Jerusalem T a l m u d , 7 a W V 4 . 8 . 6 8 d ; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 65.21, 67.7).

DAVID

543

tive ^avdos m a y also, in the m i n d of the literate reader, serve to associate David with the heroes o f Homer's two great epics, inasmuch as Achilles h a d tawny h a i r (Iliad 1.197, 23.141), as did Odysseus (Odyssey 13.399, 4 3 1 ) . Wealth In addition to handsome appearance, another requisite quality of a hero, such as a M i d a s o r an Oedipus, was the possession of wealth. O n e of the stock anti-Jewish charges was that the J e w s w e r e a nation of beggars. Josephus is therefore especially concerned to answer this charge. Thus, whereas the Bible declares simply that David smote the Philistines a n d says nothing about his plundering them (2 Sam. 5:25), Josephus specifies that w h e n David plundered the Philistines' camp, he found in it great wealth (Ant. 7.77). In his final s u m m a r y of David's virtues, J o s e phus declares that he left behind such wealth as no other king, w h e t h e r of the Hebrews o r of other nations, ever did (Ant. 7.391). Moreover, in one of the few references to David in the Jewish War (1.61), he declares that K i n g J o h n Hyrcanus opened the t o m b of David, "wealthiest of kings," a n d extracted therefrom 3,000 talents. A similar statement is found in Josephus's version of the same story in the Antiquities (13.249), w h e r e it is said that David "surpassed all other kings in wealth." Wisdom O n e of the charges against the J e w s was that they h a d contributed no useful inventions for mankind (Apollonius M o l o n , ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.148). In reply, Josephus underscores David's possession of the first of the cardinal virtues, wisdom (Ant. 7.158), in an addition to the biblical text that cites David's strange behavior in fasting while his child was sick, but bathing a n d eating after the child h a d died (2 Sam. 12:23). After quoting David's explanation that n o w that the child was dead, there was no w a y that he could bring him back to life again, Josephus adds: "At these words they [the people] praised the king's wisdom [oocfrla] a n d understanding" (SidvoLa, "thinking faculty," "intelligence," "sagacity," which Plato [Republic 6.51 i D ] identifies with the geometrical o r mathematical state o f mind, the second highest degree of knowledge). T h e latter t e r m is the same w o r d that Josephus uses with respect to Saul (Ant. 6.45), just as it is the quality that David prays that his son a n d successor S o l o m o n m a y have (Ant. 7.381). Hence, w e see that the same w o r d , Sidvoia, is used by Josephus with regard to all three great kingsSaul, David, a n d Solomon. O n e of the marks o f a great statesman, as w e see, for example, in Thucydides'
12

12. Perhaps Josephus's substitution of ^avdos for the Septuagint's TTvppdKiqs was because he wanted to avoid associating D a v i d with the shedding o f blood, since, according to rabbinic tradition (see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:247, - 3)J David's ruddy complexion indicated that he was destined to shed blood. Consequendy, the prophet Samuel was terrified when he beheld the "red" David, w h o m he surmised to b e a second Esau.
n j

544

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

portrait of Pericles (2.65.5), is his ability to foresee (irpovovs) the future. David, too, is described as being most apt in perceiving (vorjoai) a n d understanding (ovviSeiv) the course o f future events (Ant. 7.391). David's quality of irpovoia ("watchful care" o r "foresight") has particular significance, because Josephus usually employs the t e r m with reference to G - d ' s providence; a n d hence one has h e r e a case of imitatio D-i on the p a r t o f D a v i d (see C h a r l e s w o r t h 1 9 3 6 , 1 0 7 - 3 2 ) . T h u s , whereas the Bible states that David's m e n w e r e v e r y good to Nabal's m e n (1 S a m . 25:15), J o s e phus not only amplifies David's instructions to his m e n by adding that he told t h e m not to h a r m his flocks, in the belief that he was obliging a good m a n a n d one w o r t h y of such forethought (irpovoia) (Ant. 6.296); but he also adds a second time that D a v i d showed complete foresight (irpovoia) t o w a r d Nabal's shepherds (Ant. 6.300). J o s e p h u s adds to the Bible (2 S a m . 3 . 3 6 - 3 9 ) that David's c o n c e r n to show respect to A b n e r after the latter h a d been treacherously slain gave each of the people grounds to think that he, too, w o u l d receive the same forethought (irpovoia) that the corpse o f A b n e r h a d received (Ant. 7.43). Moreover, J o s e p h u s adds that after Absalom's ill-fated rebellion, the rebels b l a m e d themselves because they h a d not appealed to D a v i d to abate his anger a n d to show the same foresight (irpovoia) in their b e h a l f that h e h a d previously displayed (Ant. 7.259). Finally, w h e n David, j u s t before his death, gives his charge to his son a n d successor, S o l o m o n , Josephus, in his p a r a p h r a s e of 1 K i n g s 2:7, states that D a v i d instructed S o l o m o n to hold the sons o f Barzilai in all h o n o r a n d care (irpovoia) (Ant. 7.387). A n d yet, as noted, D a v i d is not praised unduly by Josephus. T h u s , in an extrabiblical addition, w h e n G - d tells the p r o p h e t S a m u e l w h a t qualities to look for in the king, David, w h o is about to be anointed, He lists piety (evoefteia), (SiKaioovvrj), justice fortitude (dv8pia), a n d obedience (ireiOa)), "qualities w h e r e o f beauty

o f soul consists" (Ant. 6.160). A g a i n , in the Bible, w h e n S a u l seeks out someone to cure his disorder, one of his y o u n g m e n mentions that he h a d seen a son o f Jesse, that is, David, a n d proceeds to describe h i m as "skillful in playing, a n d a mighty m a n of valor, a n d a m a n of w a r a n d p r u d e n t in affairs [lit., skillful in speech], a n d a comely person" (1 S a m . 16:18). J o s e p h u s , in his paraphrase, substitutes for "prudent in affairs" "in other w a y s w o r t h y of regard" (Ant. 6.167). In the next sentence, w h e r e the Bible states that S a u l sent to Jesse to have him send David, his son, to h i m (1 S a m . 16:19), J o s e p h u s elaborates by having Saul state that he wishes to see David, having h e a r d o f his comeliness a n d valor, but again omitting mention of his wisdom (Ant. 6.167).

Courage T h e quality of courage is always one of the m a j o r virtues that are sine q u a n o n for the leader, while an emphasis o n military details is w h a t one w o u l d expect from one w h o h a d served as a general, such as Josephus. A s for David's courage, in a n extrabiblical addition, informing the p r o p h e t S a m u e l o f the qualities to be sought in a king, G - d , as w e have seen, lists, in w h a t

DAVID

5 4 5

is virtually a revised canon of the cardinal virtues, piety, justice, b r a v e r y (dvSpeia), a n d obedience (Ant. 6.160). J o s e p h u s magnifies David's victory over the giant G o liath by accentuating the terror inspired by Goliath, for whereas the Bible states m e r e l y that Goliath's spear b e a r e r w e n t before him (1 S a m . 17:7), J o s e p h u s declares that m a n y followed him, c a r r y i n g his a r m o r (Ant. 6.171). W h e r e a s the Bible offers n o explanation as to w h y D a v i d was not in the c a m p with Saul at the time w h e n Goliath hurled his challenge (1 S a m . 1 7 : 1 2 - 1 8 ) , J o s e p h u s carefully explains that the reason was that Saul h a d sent him a w a y to his father u p o n the outbreak of the war, being content with the latter's three sons, w h o m Jesse h a d dispatched to share the dangers of the campaign (Ant. 6.175). W h e r e a s in the Bible, David, accepting the challenge to fight Goliath, says simply, "Let n o man's h e a r t fail within him; thy servant will go and fight with the Philistine" (1 S a m . 17:32), Josephus's D a v i d has a n elaborate speech w o r t h y of a Homeric hero, in which he declares that he will bring d o w n the presumption (aXa^ovela) mighty (vifjrjXov) giant before him, (Ant. 6 . 1 7 9 - 8 0 ) .
13

of the foe by throwing the laughingstock

so that he will b e c o m e a

(KaTayeXaoTos)

Like the true hero, D a v i d enters u p o n his c o m b a t

with n o expectation of r e w a r d , w h e t h e r m o n e t a r y o r personal (the g r a n t of the king's daughter in marriage), as is cited by Saul's m e n in the biblical version (1 Sam. 17:25).
o r s

J o s e p h u s , in an extrabiblical detail, indicates that David's goal in rushing (op/jLTjois) to fulfill Saul's m a n d a t e to bring a h u n d r e d foreskins (1 S a m . 18:25) h u n d r e d heads (Ant. 6.197) of the Philistines was to win r e n o w n (KXCOS) ardous a n d incredible (irapafioXos ^ for a h a z -

Kal aTnoros) exploit (Ant. 6.198), the v e r y same avopcov).

type of goal about which Achilles was singing w h e n the embassy came to t r y to persuade h i m to reenter the fighting against the Trojans (Iliadg.iSgiKXea Indeed, in the case of David's rescue of the inhabitants of K e i l a h , Scripture says simply that D a v i d saved them (1 S a m . 23:5); but J o s e p h u s enlarges u p o n this by stating that the exploit a n d its success did not remain confined to those w h o h a d witnessed them, but that the fame (</>rjpLrj) of it was noised a b r o a d (Ant. 6.272). J o s e phus, in a n extrabiblical addition, states that Saul knew the mettle (<f>p6vr}pia, "mentality," "bravery," "courage," "high spirit") a n d h a r d i h o o d (evroXpula, "heroism," "determination," "bravery") of D a v i d (Ant. 6.250). W h e r e a s in the Bible, D a v i d inquires of G - d twice w h e t h e r to go to battle against the Philistines, inasmuch as his m e n are afraid (1 S a m . 23:3), in Josephus, as soon as G - d signifies on

13. For the literate Graeco-Roman reader, the very word "laughingstock" would have called to mind its use in Aristophanic comedy (Clouds 849, with reference to Phidippides; Frogs 480, with reference to Dionysus; Thesmophoriazusae 226, with reference to Mnesilochus). Such readers would also have recalled the use of the same word in Herodotus 8.100, where he refers to the Persians as ridiculous in the eyes of the Greeks. Likewise, the reader would have recalled another of Josephus's favorite authors, Plato, who has Socrates declare that the jury ought to feel far more disgraced to condemn a man who makes the city ridiculous than the one who holds his peace (Apology 35B). Indeed, Aristophanes, in Plato's Symposium 189B, draws a contrast between others laughing with him and becoming ridiculous in their eyes.

546

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

the first inquiry that He will grant them v i c t o r y he throws himself (i^coppurjaev) with his companions upon the Philistines (Ant. 6 . 2 7 1 - 7 2 ) . Josephus's picture of David as one whose achievements will d e m a n d great toil (TTOVOL) (Ant. 6.275) * obviously an addition to the biblical statement in which
s

J o n a t h a n tells David m e r e l y that he will be king, a n d that J o n a t h a n will be next to him (1 S a m . 23:17). T h e scene is reminiscent of several passages in H o m e r w h e r e the w o r d irovog in itself signifies "batde," a n d w h e r e the phrase TTOVOV e'xeiv is equivalent to pudx^odaL, "to fight" (e.g., Iliad 6.7j; Odyssey 12.117). T h e scene also r e calls Virgil's statement that it was of such great difficulty to found the R o m a n people (Aeneid 1.33), just as it evokes Aeneas's instructions to his son Ascanius before the former's final batde with Turnus, in which he declares that his son should l e a r n manliness (virtutem) a n d true toil (verum laborem) from himself, but luck from others (Aeneid 1 2 . 4 3 5 - 3 6 ) . Josephus's David is bolder than his biblical counterpart (1 S a m . 2 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , in that whereas the latter does not give A b n e r his name, let alone mention that he is a fugitive, after his bold exploit in entering Saul's camp, Josephus's David boldly identifies himself: "I, son of Jesse, the fugitive from you" (Ant. 6.315). O n e is r e minded of Odysseus's reply to Polyphemus the Cyclops w h e n asked to identify himself after his daring exploit in putting out the eye of the Cyclops (Odyssey 9 . 3 6 4 - 6 7 ) , although Josephus's David is clearly m o r e explicit in identifying himself. David's b r a v e r y is correspondingly increased as that of his enemies is exaggerated. Thus, w e r e a d in the Bible that Abner, the general of Saul's son Ish-bosheth, "showed himself strong" (mitehazeq) (2 S a m . 3:6). In Josephus's paraphrase, A b n e r is not only strong but also clever (ovveros, "intelligent," "bright," "sharp," "saga"benevolent," cious," "sly," "resourceful," "ingenious") a n d well-disposed (cvvovs, "enjoying great favor") t o w a r d the populace (Ant. 7.22). W h e n David makes his pact with A b n e r (2 S a m . 3:13), in Josephus's version, he not only asks A b n e r to bring back his wife, Michal, Saul's daughter, to him, but he recalls h o w he h a d w o n her, namely, through an act of b r a v e r y in obtaining the heads of six h u n d r e d Philistines (Ant. 7.25). T h e r e is further dramatization of David's b r a v e r y in Josephus's version (Ant. 7.61) of the biblical passage in which the Jebusites in J e r u s a l e m sarcastically p r o claim that the blind and the l a m e will repel his forces (2 S a m . 5:6). In Josephus's version, the Jebusites' statement is taken literally, and they, in their sublime confidence in the strength of their walls, are said to have actually placed on the wall of J e r u s a l e m those w h o h a d lost an eye o r a leg o r w e r e crippled in order to mock K i n g David (Ant. 7.61). J o s e p h u s thereupon embellishes the simple biblical statem e n t (2 S a m . 5:7) that David took the stronghold of Zion by stating that he displayed great zeal (onovbrj) a n d a r d o r (TrpoOvfila) and thus struck terror into any others w h o might conceivably t r y to treat him as the Jebusites h a d done (Ant. 7.62). David's v a l o r is increased in Josephus's account of the combat with the Philistines, inasmuch as, whereas Scripture declares v e r y simply that David smote

DAVID

547

the Philistines in Baal-Perazim (2 S a m . 5:20), J o s e p h u s has a long excursus in which he explicitly attempts to refute the view, a p p a r e n t l y widespread, that it w a s a small a r m y o f Philistines that opposed the Hebrews, a n d that, to j u d g e f r o m their failure to p e r f o r m any courageous o r n o t e w o r t h y act on this occasion, the latter showed themselves slow a n d c o w a r d l y (Ant. 7.74). In fact, says J o s e p h u s , the Philistines attacked D a v i d w i t h a n a r m y three times as large as the previous one (Ant. 7.75). A p p a r e n d y to j u d g e from David's periodic inactivity in the Bible, he w a s thought to be lazy a n d careless; a n d so Josephus, in an extrabiblical addition, forcefully declares that D a v i d decided to m a r c h against the Philistines so as to counteract the charge that he w a s idle (apyos, "not working") o r slack (pqQvpios,

"careless," "carefree," "sluggish," "indifferent," "frivolous," "light-hearted") in his conduct of affairs (Ant. 7.96). W h e r e a s the Bible remarks simply that it c a m e to pass that D a v i d smote the Philistines (2 S a m . 8:1), J o s e p h u s has D a v i d show milit a r y a c u m e n by ordering his m e n to stay in seclusion a n d equip themselves for w a r (Ant. 7.97). He decides to advance against the Philistines only w h e n he sees that they are adequately p r e p a r e d . David's success as a fighter is heightened b y the fact that J o s e p h u s goes out o f his w a y to cite Nicolaus o f Damascus's words about David's great opponent, A d a dos (Ben-hadad), the king of Syria, w h o w a g e d m a n y battles against David, the last of which w a s fought on the Euphrates, far from David's h o m e territory, w h e r e A d a d o s was defeated (Ant. 7.101). T h e fact that A d a d o s is t e r m e d b y Nicolaus the most vigorous (apioros . . . pcbpLrj, "best in strength") a n d courageous (dvhpeia) of

kings serves, o f course, to increase the stature o f his victorious o p p o n e n t as well. D a v i d also shows m o r e outrage in Josephus's version of the incident w h e r e his envoys to the A m m o n i t e s r e t u r n after the latter have shaven off half their beards a n d cut their garments in the middle (2 S a m . 10:5). W h e r e a s in the Bible, D a v i d tells the m e n simply to stay in J e r u s a l e m until their beards g r o w back, Josephus's D a v i d is indignant (rfyavaKTrjae) a n d makes it plain that he will not overlook the insult (vfipis) a n d outrage (77/007777 Aa/a 07x0V, a w o r d with connotations of being bespattered with mud) (Ant. 7.120). J o s e p h u s also increases the b r a v e r y o f D a v i d by noting that the S y r i a n forces that opposed him consisted of 80,000 infantry a n d 10,000 cavalry (Ant. 7.127), w h e r e a s the Bible does not specify the size of the S y r i a n force (2 S a m . 10:16). Here J o s e p h u s follows his practice of giving precise n u m b e r s for the Bible's imprecise ones. O n e of the problems posed by the biblical account of D a v i d is that it is J o a b , David's general, w h o seems to m a k e the m a j o r military decisions, with a resultant loss of credit for David. For example, in the Bible, it is J o a b w h o masterminds the strategy b e h i n d the attack on the A m m o n i t e s (2 S a m . 11:20). In Josephus, however, D a v i d presents a long military critique o f Joab's plan o f attack a n d argues persuasively that the a r m y ought to have tried to take the enemy's city with m o u n d s a n d engines (Ant. 7 . 1 4 2 - 4 5 ) . A s things stand in the Bible, David's courage w o u l d seem to be flawed w h e n , on

548

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

the news o f the rebellion o f his son A b s a l o m , he tells his followers to flee (2 S a m . 15:14). In J o s e p h u s , David's reputation for courage is preserved b y having h i m call together his friends (who thus p r e s u m a b l y share in his decision to withdraw) a n d by entrusting the entire m a t t e r to G - d as a j u d g e (Ant. 7.199). In addition, w h e r e a s in the Bible, Hushai, David's friend, refers to D a v i d a n d his m e n as mighty (giborim) a n d to D a v i d as a m a n of w a r ('ish milhamah) (2 S a m . 17:8), an epithet used of G - d Himself in Moses' song at the S e a of Reeds (Exod. 15:3), Josephus's Hushai accentuates the military prowess of D a v i d b y referring to his b r a v e r y (dvhpeia) a n d b y acknowledging that he is a v e r y able (iKavtoTaros) general w h o t h e m a r k of a true g e n e r a l c a n foresee (TTpoihelv) the enemy's ruses (Ant. 7.217). In an extensive addition to the biblical text, Hushai then predicts that David's m e n will take h e a r t at the thought that the king is beside them, a n d that then, while the batde rages, David's sudden a p p e a r a n c e will be sufficient to inspire his m e n to face d a n g e r v a l i a n d y (Ant. 7.218). Josephus, realizing that it might well be asked w h y D a v i d himself did not p a r ticipate in the batde against A b s a l o m , considerably amplifies the scriptural statem e n t that this w a s because the people refused to allow him to do so, on the g r o u n d that his presence w a s w o r t h ten thousand soldiers (2 S a m . 18:3). J o s e p h u s editorializes b y remarking that the people's decision was v e r y wise (aocfxxjTaros) a n d b y rationalizing that if they w e r e defeated while D a v i d was present, they w o u l d lose all their hope, whereas if one p a r t o f their forces w e r e defeated a n d w e r e to fall back u p o n David, he w o u l d reinvigorate them, with the result that the e n e m y w o u l d surmise that there w a s still a n o t h e r a r m y with h i m (Ant. 7.23). A similar p r o b l e m arises concerning David's agreeing, following his n a r r o w escape from the Philistine giant Ishbi-benob, to go out no longer to batde (2 S a m . 21:7). T h e Bible's reason as to w h y his m e n swear that they will not allow D a v i d to j o i n t h e m in batde henceforth is that they cannot abide the thought o f "the l a m p of Israel," that is, David, being quenched. In Josephus, it is not David's soldiers w h o thus swear but D a v i d himself w h o is forced by his c o m m a n d e r s to swear that he will never again go forth to batde; moreover, J o s e p h u s amplifies the reason w h y they do so, namely, their fear that his b r a v e r y (dvhpeia) a n d zeal (rrpodvpLia, "enthusiasm," "confidence," "good cheer," "eagerness to fight") will cause him to suffer some injury a n d thus deprive the people of benefits past a n d future (Ant. 7.300). In his v e r y brief s u m m a r y of David's virtues, while J o s e p h u s does declare that D a v i d possessed e v e r y virtue (apery) that should be found in a king, the one virtue o f his that he singles out for special recognition is b r a v e r y (dvhpeios) (Ant. 7.390); a n d he adds that in war, D a v i d was the first to rush into danger, encouraging his m e n not by orders but b y example. M a n y years later, the two virtues of D a v i d that his great-grandson A s a is said b y J o s e p h u s to have singled out for emulation are courage (dvhpeia) a n d piety (evoefieia) (Ant. 8.315). A n d yet, in o r d e r n o t to emphasize David's courage unduly, Josephus's S a u l makes n o m e n t i o n o f David's d a r i n g (roXpnqpos) a n d c o u r a g e (eviftvxia) (Ant.

DAVID

549

6.181). T h e J o s e p h a n David, to be sure, is a m o r e dashing h e r o than he is in the Bible, as w e can see in Josephus's statement that w h e n the lion rose against D a v i d , the latter lifted him by the tail (rather than b y the b e a r d , as in 1 S a m . 17:35), a n d killed h i m by smashing (irpoap^as) him u p o n the g r o u n d (Ant. 6.182), r a t h e r than, as the H e b r e w text has it, by m e r e l y "smiting him" (ve-hikitiv). O n the o t h e r h a n d , Saul, in an addition to the Bible (1 S a m . 17:37), p r a y s that David's zeal (irpoQvpiia, "enthusiasm," "confidence," "eagerness," "courage") a n d hardiness (roXpua, "courage," "daring," "boldness," "audacity") m a y be r e w a r d e d by G - d (Ant. 6.184); but again this element is s o m e w h a t diminished by the fact that S a u l refers to D a v i d as a child (-rrais), a w o r d not in the H e b r e w o r in the Septuagint, a n d not implied by the Bible. A g a i n , J o s e p h u s increases the magnitude of David's v i c t o r y over G o l i a t h by adding to the biblical n a r r a t i v e (1 S a m . 17:48) the fact that Goliath, in his contempt for his opponent, c a m e at him at a slow pace, confident o f slaying, w i t h o u t a n y trouble, one w h o was u n a r m e d (Ant. 6.188); but h e r e again he calls attention to David's youthfulness by calling h i m "child" (noiis). Even w h e n David's status as a h e r o is elevated by Josephus, it is not so much for his o w n sake as to increase the d r a m a of the situation. Thus, whereas in the Bible, there is n o indication of Saul's motive in making David captain over a thousand (1 Sam. 18:13), Josephus explains that he did so because he hoped, by sending him into batde, that he w o u l d meet his death (Ant. 6.195). Here one notes a close p a r allel to the motive that Josephus ascribes to Pharaoh's appointing Moses to lead a campaign against the Ethiopiansnamely, that the sacred scribes of the Egyptians h o p e d both to defeat their enemies and, at the same time, to do a w a y with Moses by guile (Ant. 2.243). T h e literate r e a d e r would, at this point, p r o b a b l y have been r e m i n d e d of Perseus, w h o , w h e n he stood in the w a y of his mother's m a r r i a g e with Polydectes, was sent by the latter to fetch the head of one of the G o r g o n s a mission that Polydectes assumed w o u l d bring about his d e a t h .
14

Even w h e n J o s e p h u s recounts David's daring exploit in entering Saul's c a m p while the latter lay sleeping (1 S a m . 26:12), Josephus ascribes David's success, not only to his daring (roA/xa), but also to the favorable opportunity (Kaupos), that is, his taking advantage of the exact time a n d m o m e n t w h e n he could enter u n o b t r u sively (Ant. 6 . 3 1 3 ) .
15

Notwithstanding the statement in the preface of his Antiquities (1.14) that the main lesson to be l e a r n e d from a study of his history is that those w h o obey the will of G - d prosper, while those w h o do not suffer irretrievable disasters, J o s e p h u s

14. Josephus does not, however, exaggerate David's prowess, as do the rabbis, who, for example, declare that David as a young man killed four lions and three bears in one day (Midrash Samuel 20.5) and that he could kill eight hundred men with a single thrust of his javelin (Mo ed Qatan 16b). Nor does he have the marvelous detail that the five stones that David selected for the encounter with Goliath came to him of their own accord (Midrash Samuel 21.1). 15. Cf. Pindar, Pythian Odes 4.286: i.e., in effect, "time and tide wait for no man."
c

550

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

elsewhere tends to d o w n g r a d e the divine element in the achievements o f his biblical heroes. In the case o f David, however, h e stresses his dependence u p o n G - d , saying that it w a s because D a v i d w a s e v e r y w h e r e attended by G - d that he achieved success (Ant. 8.196). This, as has been suggested, J o s e p h u s did so as not to aggrandize the f o r e r u n n e r of the messiah, w h o was destined to o v e r t h r o w Roman hegemony

Temperance David's t e m p e r a n c e is praised in Josephus's eulogy of him, in which he refers to him as self-controlled (aoxj>p(x)v, "sensible," "prudent," "reasonable," "temperate," "modest") a n d mild (emei/orfc "moderate," "considerate," "understanding," "generous," "magnanimous," "kind," "genial," "friendly," "gende," "peaceable") (Ant. 7.391). Holladay suggests that J o s e p h u s has substituted euae'jSeia, "piety," a n d Treida), "obedience," for aco^poavvrj a n d cfrpovrjois (Holladay 1977, 7 6 - 7 7 ) ; but, as w e have seen, wisdom is one o f the virtues J o s e p h u s ascribes to David, j u s t as is moderation. W e see David's modesty displayed in Josephus's p a r a p h r a s e o f David's statem e n t w h e n S a u l offers him his armor. In the Bible, D a v i d v e r y simply says, "I cannot go with these, for I have not tried them" (1 S a m . 17:39). But Josephus's D a v i d exhibits particular courtesy a n d modesty in declaring, "Let this fine apparel be for thee, O king, for thou a r t able to w e a r it, but suffer me, as thy servant, to fight j u s t as I will" (Ant. 6.185). Moreover, after D a v i d refrains from taking Saul's life, even though he has him in his power, S a u l expresses a m a z e m e n t at David's forbearance (pLeTpLorrjs, "restraint," "moderation," "modesty") (Ant. 6.290). Conversely, Nabal is presented as a kind of anti-David; the quality o f churlishness (nevalah), associated with his v e r y n a m e (1 S a m . 25:25), is r e n d e r e d in J o s e p h u s b y the negative o f aoj(f)poGvvr], namely, dc/ypoavvrj (Ant. 6.302) (as w e see in Plato, Protagoras, 332E). W e perceive the importance o f m o d e r a t i o n in the appeal, absent in the scriptural original (1 S a m . 25:27), that Abigail, the wife of Nabal, makes to D a v i d in Josephus's version, w h e r e she states that it becomes D a v i d to show himself mild (rfpuepos, "gende," "tender") a n d h u m a n e ((^iXdvOpwrros, a virtue that, as I have r e marked, is closely associated with justice) (Ant. 6.304). Moreover, Abigail herself, in a n addition by J o s e p h u s to the biblical text (1 S a m . 25:3), is said to have attained the h o n o r of becoming David's wife because o f h e r modest (aoj<f>pojv) a n d upright (hiKaios) character, a n d also, p r e s u m a b l y secondarily, because of h e r b e a u t y (Ant. 6.308), whereas the Bible calls attention to h e r good understanding a n d to h e r beauty alone (1 S a m . 25:3). A n a n t o n y m of m o d e r a t i o n is excessive ambition (irXeove&a); a n d it is this quality that, in an addition to the Bible (2 S a m . 3:27), J o s e p h u s decries w h e n he editorializes about J o a b ' s treacherous slaying of Abner, declaring that from this act one m a y perceive to w h a t lengths o f recklessness m e n will go for the sake o f ambition (rrXeove^ta) a n d p o w e r (dpxrj) (Ant. 7 . 3 7 - 3 8 ) .

DAVID

55/

Josephus's emphasis on modesty a n d decorum is evident from his treatment of the episode in which David is despised by his wife Michal for acting like a fool in taking off most of his clothes a n d for dancing with a b a n d o n before the ark in the presence of the servant girls (2 S a m . 6:14-23). In the Bible, David replies that he w o u l d dance thus again, w h e r e u p o n the narrator, in obvious approval of David, declares that from that m o m e n t on Michal was d o o m e d to childlessness. In J o s e phus, Michal's criticism of David is balanced by h e r invoking blessings u p o n him (Ant. 7 . 8 7 - 8 9 ) . We see the same quality of mildness in David's exhortation to H a n u n after the death of the latter's father, Nahash, king of A m m o n . W h e r e a s the Bible declares merely that D a v i d sent to comfort H a n u n (2 S a m . 10:2), Josephus adds that David exhorted him to b e a r his father's death with resignation (rrpqcos, "softly," "mildly," "indulgendy" "patiendy" "calmly") (Ant. 7.117). David's moderation m a y likewise be seen in Josephus's addition in which he has him exhort his officers a n d men, w h e n sending them out to war, to show themselves mindful of the fact that he h a d treated them mildly (pueTplcos, "having the right measure," "suitably," "moderately," "modesdy") (Ant. 7.235; cf. 2 S a m . 18:4). David's moderation is stressed also in Josephus's version of the statement of Saul's grandson Mephibosheth to David (2 S a m . 19:29 vs. Ant. 7.270). In the scriptural version, Mephibosheth acknowledges that even though all his father's house w e r e deserving of death at David's hands, yet David h a d shown magnanimity in placing Mephibosheth at his o w n table. Josephus goes further in stressing David's forbearing (puerpLos, "moderate," "restrained," "reasonable") a n d kind ( x p ^ T O ? , "good," "noble," "friendly") nature in forgetting his maltreatment at the hands of Saul a n d in treating Mephibosheth no less well than the most h o n o r e d of his relations. T h e virtue of temperance is closely connected with obedience a n d respect for authority (Attridge 1 9 7 6 , 1 1 2 ) . Indeed, as w e have seen, w h e n Josephus enumerates his canon of the cardinal virtues (Ant. 6.160), he lists obedience (rreiOo}) as one of them. T h e opposite is the w a n t of j u d g m e n t (d<j>poavvin) displayed by Nabal in r e fusing to present gifts to David (Ant. 6.302).

Justice W h e n G - d lists the qualities that Samuel is to seek w h e n he is about to select D a v i d as king (Ant. 6.160), justice, as w e have seen, is one of these. W h e n the p r o p h e t Samuel anoints David, he exhorts him, in an extrabiblical addition, to be just (oiKaiov) a n d obedient (KCLTTIKOOV) to G - d ' s commandments, for thereby he will become splendid (XapiTrpov) a n d r e n o w n e d (TTpi^6r)Tov) a n d will attain glorious fame (KX4OS aoloip.ov) (Ant. 6.165); the w o r d dotSi/xov, meaning "sung of" a n d "famous in song o r s t o r y " a n d recalling Achilles' singing of the glorious deeds of m e n (/cAea avoptov) (Homer, Iliad 9.189), refers to one w h o is w o r t h y of having an

552

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS


1 6

epic sung about h i m .

Likewise, w h e n he is about to die, in his charge to his suc-

cessor, S o l o m o n , David, in an extrabiblical addition (i K i n g s 2:3), urges that he adhere to the laws, that is, to justice, by being impartial a n d by yielding neither to favor (xapt>s) n o r to flattery (Qameia) (Ant. 7.384). C o u p l e d with justice, as noted, is the virtue of h u m a n i t y (<j>i\avSpamia). It is significant, therefore, that in his final eulogy of David's character, Josephus stresses that, a m o n g other qualities, he was just (biKaios) a n d h u m a n e (<j>i\avdpa)7Tos), qualities that, he says, are especially appropriate for kings (Ant. 7.391). It is significant that whereas Josephus's source at one point, 1 C h r o n . 22:12, has David exhort S o l o m o n to piety a n d courage, Josephus's David adds justice (Ant. 7.328). W h e n David prays on behalf of his son a n d successor, S o l o m o n (1 C h r o n . 29:19), whereas in Scripture he asks that his son m a y be pious in keeping the commandments, in Josephus, he singles out justice in praying that S o l o m o n m a y have a sound (vyirjs) a n d just (SLKCLLOS) mind, strengthened by all virtuous qualities (Ant. 7.381). Justice, says Josephus, in an editorial comment, which is an addition to the biblical text, prevails over anger a n d fear (Ant. 6.212), a n d does so inevitably, as D a v i d points out to Abigail apropos of h e r churlish husband, Nabal (Ant. 6.305) (see Schlatter 1932, 40; a n d Pfeifer 1967, 6 1 - 6 2 ) . In emphasizing, through his addition to the biblical narrative, the m e r c y that David showed to Saul, Josephus is also stressing the former's justice; and, indeed, Saul explicidy compliments David for having shown the righteousness (oiKcuoovvrj) of the ancients, w h o b a d e those w h o captured their enemies in a lonely place to spare their lives (Ant. 6.290). This emphasis on David's mercy m a y be seen in the fact that whereas w h e n David, finding Saul in his power, surreptitiously cuts off a piece of his clothing, a n d it is not clear w h e t h e r he does so at his o w n initiative o r at that of his m e n (1 S a m . 24:5), Josephus makes clear that he did so on the counsel of his men. Indeed, Josephus adds that they counseled him even to cut off Saul's head, but that David, with his strong sense of mercy, refused to do so. W h e r e a s in the Bible, David afterwards (hharei-keri) feels remorse (1 S a m . 24:6), in Josephus, he repents forthwith (evOvs) a n d remarks, in an addition to the Bible, "Even though he treats m e ill, yet I must not do the like to him" (Ant. 6.284). In addition, whereas in the Bible, David, quite unmagnanimously quotes the ancient proverb "Out of the wicked cometh forth wickedness," implying that Saul's wicked deeds have begotten his o w n d o o m (1 S a m . 24:14), Josephus's merciful David omits these words (Ant. 6.289). W h e r e a s the Bible's David simply declares that his m e n h a d done no h a r m to Nabal's shepherds (1 S a m . 25:7), Josephus's David charges his m e n to see to it that Nabal's flocks remain safe (Ant. 6.295). He stresses that his m e n should, presumably in the n a m e o f justice, hold it m o r e important than all else to w r o n g no m a n .

16. The word doi<k/uos is used by Josephus only here and in Ant. 19.53, where it is employed in connection with the notorious insults against Chaerea, the chief conspirator against the emperor Gaius Caligula.

DAVID

T h a t D a v i d in J o s e p h u s is forever looking at the good side of people is also clear from the instructions that he gives to his m e n (Ant. 6.296), totally unparalleled in the H e b r e w (1 S a m . 2 5 : 1 - 7 ) , in the belief that he w a s obliging a good m a n a n d one w o r t h y of such consideration. T h e kindness a n d m e r c y of D a v i d are likewise, as w e have noted, contrasted with the churlishness of Nabal (1 S a m . 25:10), which J o s e phus exaggerates, for, whereas the biblical Nabal declares sarcastically that "there are m a n y servants n o w a d a y s that break a w a y from their masters," Josephus's Nabal uses stronger language in remarking that n o w a d a y s fugitives (SpaTTerai, " r u n a w a y slaves") think m u c h of themselves a n d boast of deserting their masters (Ant. 6.298). If, in the end, D a v i d does not show his v a u n t e d m e r c y t o w a r d Nabal, J o s e p h u s is careful to justify this by adding to the Bible (1 S a m . 2 5 : 5 - 8 ) that at the time w h e n Nabal was shearing his sheep, D a v i d sent ten of his m e n to greet h i m and to j o i n him in p r a y i n g that Nabal might be so employed for m a n y years to come; but, nevertheless, Nabal rebuffed their request for food (Ant. 6 . 2 9 7 - 9 8 ) . In o r d e r to justify David's anger at Nabal, Josephus, in a n extrabiblical addition, emphasizes that D a v i d displayed a forbearance remarkable in a roving b a n d of outlaws, such as David's force was, a n d that D a v i d felt ought to be r e w a r d e d (Ant. 6.297). J o s e p h u s elaborates considerably in justifying David's anger at Nabal, adding that D a v i d w a s a n g r y not m e r e l y at Nabal's ingratitude t o w a r d one w h o had shown h i m such kindness ((f>iXavOpa)TT[a), but at his insult a n d abuse w h e n he had done h i m n o injury (Ant. 6.299). T h a t for Josephus's David, a n integral p a r t of justice is m e r c y is likewise clear from the fact that J o s e p h u s omits the extreme language with which D a v i d vows that should he leave anything of Nabal's possessions by morning, G - d should do likewise to him (1 S a m . 2 5 : 2 1 - 2 2 vs. Ant. 6.301). David's quality of m e r c y is likewise emphasized in Josephus's version of Abishai's statement to D a v i d urging him to smite Saul, w h o m he has in his p o w e r (1 S a m . 26:8 vs. Ant. 6.312). A s J o s e p h u s describes it, Abishai not only wishes to kill Saul but even darts f o r w a r d (cbpparjKOTO) to do so, a n d hence the fact that D a v i d stops h i m is all the m o r e effective in illustrating David's sense of mercy. Likewise, David's m a g n a n i m i t y to S a u l is amplified by Josephus's considerable expansion of Saul's biblical statement, acknowledging David's love for him; this in contrast to the t e r r o r in which he has forced D a v i d to live (1 S a m . 26:21 vs. Ant. 6.317). M o r e over, in the incident in which D a v i d reclaims M i c h a l from h e r second husband, w h e r e the Bible paints a picture of Michal's husband weeping as he accompanies his wife (2 S a m . 3:16), Josephus, realizing that such a scene w o u l d m a k e D a v i d a p p e a r heardess, omits these details (Ant. 7.26). A g a i n , in an addition to the Bible (2 S a m . 1 4 : 1 2 - 1 7 ) , J o s e p h u s depicts the w o m a n of Tekoa as thanking D a v i d for his kindness (xprjoTOTrjs) surance of h u m a n e treatment (<j)i\av6pamia). A k i n to this quality of <f>i\avQpamia is David's unselfishness. Indeed, h e is given the epithet "benefactor" (evepyerrjaavros) (Ant. 7.291), which w a s applied to Hellenistic kings, such as Ptolemy III Euergetes I (r. 2 4 6 - 2 2 1 B.C.E.) a n d Ptolemy V I I in taking pity on her old age a n d h e r near-childlessness (Ant. 7.184). S h e then successfully seeks as-

554

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

Euergetes II (r. 1 4 5 - 1 1 6 B.C.E.). T h u s , unselfishness is seen particularly in J o s e phus's version of the famous episode w h e r e David, after the census, is given a choice o f three punishmentsseven years o f famine, three m o n t h s of fleeing before his foes, o r three days o f pestilence (2 S a m . 24:13). W h e n D a v i d chooses the last, the Bible offers n o reason for his choice (2 S a m . 24:14). J o s e p h u s , however, carefully explains the reason for David's choice, namely, that if he h a d asked for the famine, it w o u l d a p p e a r that he did so since this w o u l d pose n o risk to himself, inasmuch as he h a d a great deal o f grain stored up. If, on the other h a n d , he h a d chosen the three months of defeat, people would say that he h a d done so because he h a d nothing to fear personally, inasmuch as he h a d the bravest m e n a r o u n d him. T h e r e f o r e , to show that he was not selfish, he chose the pestilence, since this w o u l d afflict all in his kingdom alike (Ant. 7 . 3 2 2 - 2 3 ) .
17

C o n n e c t e d with the quality of cfriXavOpwTrla is that of gratitude. T h u s J o s e p h u s elaborates on the c o n c e r n that D a v i d shows for the r e m n a n t of the house of Saul (2 S a m . 9:1), adding, in particular, that beside the other qualities that he possessed was the virtue o f being ever mindful o f those w h o h a d benefited him at a n y time (Ant. 7.111). J o s e p h u s spells out the w a y in which D a v i d sought to show his gratitude to Barzillai for providing him w i t h sustenance, namely, that he w o u l d cherish him in old age with e v e r y honor; he also promises to take care o f h i m a n d to p r o vide for him (Ant. 7.272). Even after Barzillai, because o f his old age, declines David's generous offer, D a v i d asks him to leave his son C h i m h a m with him so that he m a y bestow the benefits of hospitality u p o n him (Ant. 7.274). In contrast, David's gratefulness is m u c h less p r o n o u n c e d in the H e b r e w original, w h e r e it is Barzillai w h o proposes that his son take his place in accompanying D a v i d to J e r u s a l e m (2 S a m . 19:38). Finally, w e can see David's scale of values in the fact, added by J o s e p h u s to the biblical narrative (2 S a m . 29:24), that D a v i d says that he admires A r a u n a h ' s liberality (aTrXorrjs, "simplicity" "plainness," "generosity," "liberality") a n d greatness of soul (pLeyaXoifivxla) (Ant. 7.332), that aristocratic p r i d e so central in Aristode's description (Nicomachean i^/w^s" 4 . 3 . 1 1 2 3 A 3 3 - 1 1 2 5 A 3 5 ) o f the ideal personality. Allied to the attribute o f ^iXavOpwrrla is also the quality o f generosity.
18

We may

note, for example, the extrabiblical addition (1 S a m . 27:9 vs. Ant. 6.323) concerning David's generosity in giving to K i n g Achish a portion o f the spoils that he h a d taken from his raids on the Geshurites, Gizirites, a n d Amalekites. T h e r e was almost no quality m o r e deeply appreciated in antiquity t h a n hospitality. Hence, Josephus's amplification o f the r e p a y m e n t m a d e by D a v i d for the hospitality shown to h i m by Achish, king of the Philistines (Ant. 6.326), w o u l d have evoked greater admiration for David. In the Bible, D a v i d declares merely, "Therefore,

17. See also Talqut 2.165. Cf. Midrash Psalms 17.4; Midrash Samuel 31.1; Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 8 (beginning) (ed. Friedmann, 39); Pesiqta Rabbati 11; targum on 1 Chron. 21:13. 18. See Amstutz 1968, 4 2 - 4 3 , on the juxtaposition of arrXorins and fMeyaXoipuxia in Ant. 7.332. He concludes that the former term stresses the spontaneity of the gift.

DAVID

555

thou shalt k n o w w h a t thy servant will do" (i S a m . 2 8 : 1 - 2 ) , whereas J o s e p h u s adds that David promptiy (Trpodvpuajs, "eagerly," "enthusiastically" "willingly") promised to r e p a y his good offices (evepyeolas) a n d hospitality (gevlas) (Ant. 6.326).

O n e m a y w o n d e r w h y J o s e p h u s depicts D a v i d in a m o r e favorable light h e r e t h a n e l s e w h e r e p e r h a p s it was in o r d e r to answer those J e w - b a i t e r s w h o argued that J e w s w e r e trustworthy only to their fellow J e w s but hated non-Jews. T h e p o r t r a y a l o f D a v i d shows that a J e w is true to his w o r d to a non-Jew a n d appreciates assistance rendered. Indeed, J o s e p h u s likewise amplifies on the biblical statement (1 S a m . 29:6) w h e n h e has K i n g Achish testify to the great zeal (oTrovorj) a n d friendliness (evvoia, "goodwill," "kindness," "empathy," "loyalty," "devotion," "faithfulness") that D a v i d has shown h i m (Ant. 6.355). W e are given a picture o f D a v i d the gracious host in Josephus's addition to the Bible's statement (2 S a m . 3:20) that D a v i d m a d e A b n e r a n d his m e n a feast (Ant. 7.30). J o s e p h u s embellishes the scene by stating that D a v i d received h i m in friendly (<f>iXo(f)p6va)s) fashion a n d entertained him with splendid (XapL-rrpos) a n d lavish (7roXvTXrjs) feasts that lasted m a n y days. T h e same qualities of kindness (XJO^CTTO?) a n d gendeness (rjpuepos) are shown in David's treatment o f A b n e r ' s corpse; and, indeed, in this connection, J o s e p h u s uses the w o r d irpovoia^ usually employed for divine providence, to describe David's care for A b n e r ' s b o d y (Ant. 7.43). G i v e n the emphasis placed on the r e c o v e r y of the corpse o f one w h o h a d died in batde in antiquity, this w o u l d have been especially appreciated by a p a g a n G r a e c o - R o m a n audience, which would, for example, have recalled Priam's embassy to Achilles in Homer's Iliad, book 24, seeking to recover the b o d y of Priam's son, Hector. T h e same quality of hospitality is found in Josephus's c o m m e n t , without parallel in the Bible (2 S a m . 5:3), that w h e n the tribal leaders c a m e to p a y h o m a g e to D a v i d at H e b r o n , he entertained (KarevoDxrjoas) a n d treated t h e m hospitably (<j>iXo<j)povri<japLvos)i a n d then sent them to bring all the people to him (Ant. 7-54)David's generosity even to his enemies is seen, moreover, in Josephus's addition to the biblical text (2 S a m . 18:5), w h e r e he threatens to do himself some injury if his rebellious son A b s a l o m should meet death (Ant. 7.235). It is this greatness o f m i n d (pbeyaXoi/jvxla), combined with his liberality (aTrXoTrjs, "generosity," "simplicity," "plainness"), that D a v i d admires in A r a u n a h ; a n d by implication these are qualities o f D a v i d himself (Ant. 7.322, not paralleled in 2 S a m . 24:24). W e m a y note that the quality of pueyaXoiffvxla is that lofty, princely posture with which a gift is bestowed (Amstutz 1 9 6 8 , 4 2 - 4 3 ) . W h i l e the w o r d says nothing direcdy about the gift itself, it implies that the d e m e a n o r o f the giver is extraordinary. C o n n e c t e d with the virtue o f justice is the e n o r m o u s responsibility to tell the truth. W h e n J o s e p h u s editorializes about David, he stresses that he was just (SIKCLIOS) by nature a n d looked only to the truth in giving j u d g m e n t (Ant. 7. n o ) . Josephus's David, moreover, stresses m o r e than his biblical c o u n t e r p a r t (2 S a m . 3:28) his c o n c e r n to be true to the pledge that he h a d sworn to A b n e r (Ant. 7.40). W h e r e a s in Scripture, M e p h i b o s h e t h says to D a v i d m e r e l y that he, the king, is an

556

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

angel of G - d (2 S a m . 19:28), in Josephus, he declares his full confidence that n o calumny will enter David's mind, because his mind is just (SiKaia) a n d loves the truth (dXrjdeiav ayaTrwaa), which G - d also wishes to prevail (Ant 7.269). T h a t David does not listen to lies a n d calumny is highlighted in Josephus's addition to David's biblical speech to Saul (2 S a m . 24:10 vs. Ant 6.285). J o s e p h u s editorializes that calumny (SiafioArj) deceives, "while actions clearly reveal the honest friend; words are inherendy either true o r false, but deeds show one's real intention" (Ant 6.286). T h e rabbis, on the other h a n d , are careful not to whitewash David of the charge of slander (Toma 22b), since he believed Ziba's denunciation of his master Mephibosheth that the latter was planning to overthrow David (Ant 7. 2 0 5 - 6 ) .

Piety W h e n Josephus contrasts David a n d his successor, S o l o m o n , the one quality that he singles out as the virtue through which David attained his glory is piety (evoepeia) (Ant 8.196). Even much later, w h e n Josephus comes to the reign of Asa, he carefully notes two virtues, courage (dvhpeia) a n d piety (evoefieia), in which this king imitated his great-great-grandfather David (Ant 8.315). In the first place, w e m a y note the close connection between justice a n d piety for Josephus. T h u s Josephus, in the introduction to his account of David's affair with Bathsheba, states that this sin was something exceptional, since David was by nature righteous (OIKOLIOS) a n d G - d - f e a r i n g (deooePrjs), the first t e r m a p p a r e n d y applying to his treatment of h u m a n beings and the second to his attitude t o w a r d G - d (Ant 7.130). W h e n he instructs his son Solomon, David, in an extrabiblical addition, tells him to rule with piety (evoeficos) a n d justice (hiKaiws) (Ant 7.356). S h o r d y thereafter, he promises S o l o m o n that he will prosper if he shows himself pious (evoefirjs) a n d just (OIKOLIOS) (Ant 7.374). Finally, as he is about to die, David, in his third admonition to S o l o m o n , charges him to be j u s t (SiKaiw) t o w a r d his subjects a n d pious (evoefiei) t o w a r d G - d (Ant 7.384). Indeed, before going off to batde, David, in an addition to Scripture (2 S a m . 10:9), is said to put his trust in G - d a n d in the justice of his cause (Ant 7.122). David's piety is emphasized in a n u m b e r of extrabiblical passages in Josephus. In his account of David's combat with Goliath, Josephus contrasts David's piety with Goliath's blasphemy, so that whereas the Bible says m e r e l y that Goliath taunted the armies of the living G - d (1 S a m . 17:36), Josephus quotes David as saying that Goliath h a d both insulted the Israelite a r m y and blasphemed G - d (Ant 6.183). In an expansion of the biblical statement (1 S a m . 17:46), w h e n David speaks before the encounter, he stresses his confidence in G - d as a protector w h e n all other forces are unavailing (Ant 6.187). A t the conclusion of the encounter, whereas the Bible states that David carried Goliath's a r m o r to his o w n tent a n d brought his h e a d to J e r u s a l e m (1 S a m . 17:54), Josephus's David emphasizes his dependence upon G - d for his victory by dedicating Goliath's sword to G - d 6.192). Moreover, Josephus repeatedly stresses G - d ' s care (npovoia) (Ant for all of

DAVID

557

David's affairs (Ant. 6.181, 1 9 6 , 203, 280; 7.65, 7 1 - 7 7 , 90, 122). Indeed, one of the most obvious marks of David's piety is his gratitude to G - d for his care of the Israelites. W h e n David gives instructions to S o l o m o n with regard to the Temple, he urges him to be w o r t h y of G - d ' s providence (Trpovoia) by being pious, just, a n d brave (Ant. 7.338). In his dying charge to S o l o m o n , he reiterates that if S o l o m o n transgresses a n y of the C o m m a n d m e n t s , he will turn G - d ' s watchfulness (Trpovoia) into hostility (Ant. 7.385). David shows his piety w h e n , in contrast to the Bible, w h e r e he simply tells the assembly of Israel to bring up the ark, since it h a d been neglected (1 C h r o n . 13:3), in Josephus, he specifically associates this neglect with the misfortunes that the Israelites have suffered (Ant. 7.79). G - d ' s explicit approval of David's piety is indicated in the addition, having n o counterpart in Scripture (2 S a m . 7 : 4 - 1 7 ) , in which G - d bids Nathan to tell David that he approves of his purpose a n d desire to build a Temple, adding that n o one before h a d h a d it in his m i n d to build one (Ant. 7.92). Indeed, Josephus elsewhere casually states that it was David himself w h o erected the Temple (Ant. 1.226). O n e passage that might well have cast a shadow on David's piety is the statem e n t of David to J o n a t h a n that if Saul should ask w h e r e he is, J o n a t h a n should reply that he has gone to Bethlehem to participate in the annual family sacrifice (zevah; Septuagint, Ovoia) there (1 S a m . 20:6; cf. 20:28). Josephus, a p p a r e n d y realizing that this w o u l d suggest that David was r e a d y to p e r f o r m sacrifices outside of J e r u s a l e m , has David go to a festival celebration (ioprrf), without indicating that a n y sacrifice was involved (Ant. 6.227, 3 6 ) A n o t h e r incident that seems to cast doubt upon David's piety is the one in which D a v i d asks Ahimelech the priest for the shewbread, even though such b r e a d was reserved for priests alone (1 S a m . 2 1 : 4 - 7 ) . In Josephus's version, David's piety is preserved because he simply requests provisions for his journey, with n o notion of their sacred character. (Ant. 6 . 2 4 3 - 4 4 ) . Still a n o t h e r passage that seems to cast into question David's reputation for piety is the episode in which David appears to accuse G - d , for he says that if it be the L - r d W h o has stirred up Saul against him, then He ought to accept an offering (1 S a m . 26:19). Indeed, the rabbis go so far as to declare that David came to grief because of this statement, a n d that G - d , in punishment, caused him to undertake the census that resulted in a pestilence (Berakot 62b). Josephus totally omits this assertion on David's p a r t (Ant. 6.316). T h e chief difficulty with David's reputation for piety, however, is the incident with Bathsheba. According to the Talmud, this is one of five incidents that are read in the synagogue but not translated (Megillah 25a), presumably because of their embarrassing nature. It is significant that Josephus parallels the Talmud's directive in omitting the first three of theseReuben's intercourse with his father's concubine Bilhah (Gen. 35:22), the second account of the G o l d e n C a l f (Exod. 3 2 : 2 1 - 2 5 ) , a n d the blessing of the priests (Num. 6:24-27). T h e two passages that J o s e p h u s does include are significandy both connected with David, namely, the
2

55#

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

Bathsheba incident (2 S a m . 1 1 : 2 - 1 7 ) a n d the beginning of the incident involving David's son A m n o n and T a m a r (2 S a m . 13:1). In truth, the inclusion of these passages would a p p e a r to detract from the stature of David; a n d the rabbis, indeed, seek to free David from blame in the Bathsheba affair by remarking that he h a d decreed that everyone going forth to batde was required to divorce his wife, so that Bathsheba would actually have been divorced by U r i a h w h e n David h a d relations with h e r (Shabbat 5 6 a ) . Moreover, they exonerate him because of his wholehearted penitence after the deed (Shabbat 30a). Still another view is that David did not actually go through with the act at all but merely contemplated it, o r that U r i a h deserved death for disobeying David's o r d e r to go h o m e to his wife (Shabbat 56a). Josephus, on the other hand, does not cover up David's sin but candidly declares that although he was by nature righteous (ou<aicp) a n d G - d - f e a r i n g (deooefiei), nevertheless he fell into this grave e r r o r (Ant. 7.130). T h e fact that Josephus elaborates the account of the death of Bathsheba's husband U r i a h considerably by underscoring the b r a v e r y that he showed in batde augments the guilt of David (2 S a m . 11:17 vs. Ant. 7 . 1 3 9 - 4 0 ) . T h a t the prophet Nathan generalizes in Josephus, in a passage that has no counterpart in the Bible (2 S a m . 12:1), that it is the w a y of kings, w h e n they fall into a passion (6pyrj), to be m o r e influenced by this than by a sense of justice (SiKaia)) (Ant. 7.147), clearly implies that David was thus derelict in that most important of virtues for a ruler, justice. In contrast to the simple biblical statement in which David says to Nathan, "I have sinned against the L - r d " (2 S a m . 12:13), Josephus says that David was dismayed (rapaxOevros) troubled (ovoxedevros) a n d gready a n d admitted his impiety with tears of grief, "for," adds

Josephus, "he was, as all agreed, a G - d - f e a r i n g (deooefir/s) m a n and never sinned in his life except in the matter of Uriah's wife" (Ant. 7.153). Josephus then also elaborates on the statement of G - d ' s acceptance of David's repentance (Ant. 7.153). Josephus has heightened the role of G - d in this incident by omitting Nathan's p r e diction that continuing warfare within David's house would result from this sin (2 S a m . 12:10) (so Wojcik 1980, 24), presumably because such rebellion would be less u n d e r divine control than a single rebellion would be. By having G - d Himself declare, after David's confession, that He is no longer displeased with him, Josephus thus closes the matter, whereas in the Bible, G - d ' s forgiveness is relayed through Nathan (2 S a m . 12:13 vs. Ant. 7.153). T h e incident that follows (the death of the child that Bathsheba b o r e to David) (2 S a m . 12:15-23) might suggest that G - d ' s forgiveness of David was not complete, and that the consequences of his sin with Bathsheba w e r e continuing to make themselves felt. Josephus avoids this implication, however, by remarking that the great misfortune that overtook David's household resulted from the following (roiavTiqs) cause (Ant. 7.162), thus connecting it with w h a t follows, namely, David's son Amnon's ravishing of the latter's sister Tamar, rather than with w h a t h a d gone before (Wojcik 1980, 25). T h e opposite of David's own piety is to be seen in Absalom's impiety (dae'jSeia) and audacity (roXpua), since A b s a l o m was guilty of much greater acts of lawlessness

DAVID

(Trapavofjucorepoi) in his seeking the kingship, which h a d not been given him by G - d (Ant 7.198). In the preface to his Antiquities, as noted above, Josephus states that the main lesson to be learned from his w o r k is that G - d rewards those w h o follow His laws a n d punishes those w h o do not (Ant 1.14). In his David narrative, Josephus illustrates this affirmation by editorializing, for example, about Nabal in almost the same language used in his preface (Ant 6.307), whereas Scripture has no such r e mark (1 S a m . 25:38). T h e problem of theodicy arises in connection with the census initiated by David, since, according to the Bible, it was G - d w h o incited David to undertake the census for which he was later punished (2 S a m . 24:1). T h e r e a d e r of the scriptural account m a y well ask w h e t h e r its presentation is reconcilable with the concept of h u m a n free will. According to the other biblical version of this event, it was Satan w h o incited David to undertake the census (1 C h r o n . 21:1); but this simply raises the further question w h y G - d permitted Satan to do so, a n d w h y David should then be punished (Poznanski 1 8 8 7 , 1 ; Schlatter 1 9 1 0 , 4 1 ; cited by R a p p a p o r t 1930, 131, n. 238). Josephus solves the problem of theodicy here by omitting reference to the incitement of David by either G - d or Satan (Ant 7.318). T h e most significant point about David's piety, however, is that Josephus uses it to diminish the status of David, inasmuch as he ascribes to G - d achievements that are imputed to David himself in the Bible. His doing so is particularly striking, inasmuch as elsewhere, as w e have seen, Josephus diminishes the role of G - d . In his entire version of the story of Ruth (Ant 5 . 3 1 8 - 3 6 ) , Josephus n o w h e r e speaks of G - d , despite His being mentioned seventeen times in the biblical n a r r a tive, except, v e r y suddenly, at the v e r y end (Ant 5.337). T h e r e he declares that the reason w h y he has told the story which, after all, has only tangential interest for his history is that he wished to show the p o w e r of G - d and the ease with which He promotes even o r d i n a r y folk to rank as illustrious as that to which He raised David, w h o h a d sprung from such ignominious ancestry. Hence, the v e r y mention of G - d here is due only to Josephus's aim of connecting David's origin with the divine will. W e m a y note as well that the role of the prophet Samuel is decreased a n d that of G - d is increased in the account of the choice of David as king. In the Bible, G - d tells Samuel that he was mistaken in supposing that David's older brother Eliab was to be anointed (1 S a m . 11:6); Josephus, on the other hand, explicidy declares that Samuel mistook G - d ' s design (Trpovoia) (Ant 6.158). In the Bible, Samuel assumes that Jesse's eldest son is to be anointed; but in Josephus, Samuel pointedly asks G - d , a n d G - d direcdy replies that m e n and G - d do not see things in the same w a y W h e r e a s in the scriptural account, Jesse calls his sons to pass before Samuel, w h o avers that G - d has not chosen any of them (1 S a m . 1 6 : 8 - 1 0 ) , in Josephus, Samuel direcdy asks G - d which of them He has chosen to be king (Ant 6.162). Similarly, the role of G - d in David's victory over Goliath is heightened. T h e Bible states that David hastened to meet Goliath, but makes no mention of G - d ' s

j6b

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

help (i S a m . 17:48). Josephus, on the other hand, asserts that David was accompanied by "an ally [avybfjuaxos] invisible to the foe, and this was G - d " (Ant. 6.189). T h e net result is to play d o w n David's o w n role in this v i c t o r y
1 9

G - d ' s role is likewise heightened in David's success in avoiding Saul. For whereas Scripture says that David fled a n d came to Samuel (1 S a m . 19:18), J o s e phus has David tell S a m u e l that it was with G - d ' s aid that he h a d t u r n e d out to be so fortunate; a n d J o s e p h u s himself comments editorially that it was this v e r y thing, G - d ' s aid to David, that was the reason for Saul's hatred of him (Ant. 6.220). Later, in contrast to the Bible, w h e r e Saul simply declares that he knows that David will be king (1 S a m . 24:21), Josephus's Saul declares that it is his firm belief that it is G - d w h o is reserving the kingdom for him (Ant. 6.291). Again, w h e n J o n a t h a n calls u p o n G - d to be the witness of his covenant with David (1 S a m . 20:12), Josephus's J o n a t h a n elaborates by ascribing to G - d the qualities of being e v e r y w h e r e extended (/cexf/xevos"poured out," "diffused") a n d of knowing men's thoughts before they are expressed (Ant. 6.230). Moreover, Josephus, in reporting the calumnies of the m e n of Ziph, adds to the biblical account by referring to David as a G - d - f a v o r e d m a n (OeocfriXrjs) (1 S a m . 23:25 vs. Ant. 6.280). Josephus remarks that David realized that it was by the will (PovXrjois) of G - d that he prospered, whereas the Bible at this point has n o c o m p a r a b l e c o m m e n t (2 Sam. 7:1 vs. Ant. 7.90). Likewise, the Bible says nothing of the role of G - d in David's success in conquering Betah a n d Berothai (2 S a m . 8:8), but Josephus explicidy affirms that the conquest c a m e about with the encouragement of G - d , w h o gave him success in w a r (Ant. 7.105). To be sure, in connection with David's victory over Edom, the Bible says that G - d gave David victory w h e r e v e r he w e n t (2 S a m . 8:14); but Josephus elaborates on this point b y remarking that G - d granted him success, not only w h e n he himself fought, but also w h e n he sent Abishai with a force against the Edomites (Ant. 7.109) (so in 1 C h r o n . 18:12). In the account of the affair of Bathsheba, after David's admission of guilt, Nathan tells David, "The L - r d also hath put a w a y thy sin; thou shalt not die" (2 Sam. 12:13). In Josephus, G - d speaks direcdy rather than through Nathan, and promises to preserve both David's life a n d his kingdom (Ant. 7.153). T h e Bible says nothing of G - d ' s role in the rivalry between Israel and J u d a h for David's favor (2 S a m . 19:44), whereas in Josephus, the leaders of Israel declare that it is because David has received from G - d authority over all that he must be considered a relative of all (Ant. 7.277). Josephus's heightening of G - d ' s role m a y also be seen in the fact that on three

19. The idea that G-d grants an alliance ( a i ^ a ^ i a ) to those whom he favors is found in connection with Moses' exhortation at the Sea of Reeds (Ant. 2.332). As Attridge 1976a, 7 8 - 7 9 , notes, the role of G-d as helper (ftorjdos) and ally (au ^axos) occurs throughout the first half of the Antiquities in Josephus's paraphrase of the Bible.

DAVID

56/

occasions, w h e r e the Bible makes n o mention of David's prophetic activity, a n activity that, of course, has G - d as its source, J o s e p h u s does so. In the first case, w h e r e a s Scripture declares that the spirit o f the L - r d c a m e mightily u p o n D a v i d but does n o t indicate that h e w e n t on to prophesy (1 S a m . 16:13), J o s e p h u s says explicidy that w h e n the divine spirit h a d come u p o n him, he began to prophesy (Ant. 6.166).
20

T h e second instance w h e r e J o s e p h u s qualifies D a v i d as a p r o p h e t is in a n

extrabiblical addition w h e r e D a v i d uses the w o r d "temple" in connection with the site o f A r a u n a h ' s threshing floor (2 S a m . 24:24 a n d 1 C h r o n . 22:1 vs. Ant. 7 .334); w h e r e u p o n Josephus, in a n editorial c o m m e n t , remarks that D a v i d accurately (evoToxcos) predicted the future, a n d that G - d thus sent h i m as a p r o p h e t t o foretell that his temple w o u l d b e built b y his son. T h e third reference to David's prophetic p o w e r s is in Solomon's statement, after he has completed the construction o f the Temple, that most o f the future events that G - d has revealed (1 K i n g s 8:15 says m e r e l y "promised") to D a v i d have already come to pass a n d that the rest will follow (Ant. 8.109). O n the o t h e r h a n d , w e m a y p e r h a p s ask w h y J o s e p h u s diminishes the role o f miracles in David's achievements, since the net result o f his doing so is to accentuate David's o w n role in these. T h e answer w o u l d seem to be that Josephus, in line with his usual practice, downgrades the role o f miracles also in David's case, since his rationalistic readers w o u l d have looked askance at t h e m .
21

Not only w e r e such miraculous elements likely to have p r o v e d incredible to Josephus's readers; they might also have unduly magnified D a v i d in the minds o f his audience; a n d Josephus, as w e have seen, w a s eager to avoid this, lest he irritate the R o m a n s , w h o m a y have been a w a r e that the messiah (by definition a J e w ish political rebel) would, it w a s said, b e descended from D a v i d .
22

20. Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities (59.4), which parallels Josephus in so many respects, speaks of David at this point not as prophesying but as singing a psalm. On the other hand, the rabbis refer to him as a prophet (Seder Olam 20; Mekilta Bo [Petihta] 2a); and, indeed, the term "thefirstprophets" is said to refer to Samuel, David, and Solomon (Sotah 48b; Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 9.24b). See Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:249-50, n. 24.

21. In this, Josephus stands in clear contrast to the treatment of David by the rabbis, who, for example (see Amstutz 1968), note that when Samuel had poured the oil on David's brothers, it miraculously remained in the horn, but when he poured it upon David, it poured of itself, the drops miraculously turned to diamonds and pearls, and the horn itself remained as full as before. Likewise, Josephus avoids magical elements, such as the rabbinic view that David afflicted Goliath with leprosy in casting
his evil eye upon him (see Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 21.2; Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 127 [ed. Mandelbaum]; and Midrash Samuel 21.109, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:252, n. 43). Josephus also does not have the tradition known to Pseudo-Philo that the angel Cervihel gave David strength to kill Goliath (Bib. Ant. 61.5),

or the rabbinic tradition that an angel cast Goliath to the ground face downward so that the mouth that had blasphemed G-d might be choked with earth (Midrash Psalms 19.160, 244, 533; Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 107; Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 4.4; and Midrash Samuel 21.109, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38,
6:252, n. 43).

22. Josephus does not have the tradition that David was one of the few over whom the evil inclination had no power (Baba Batra 17a) or that the world was created for the sake of David (i.e., the messiah) (Sanhedrin 98b). Indeed, the rabbis present an elaborate picture of the heavenly bodies and the an-

562

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

David as Poet and Scholar In view of the importance of music in the lives of the ancients, it is surprising that Josephus does not put greater stress upon David's achievements as a musician. J o s e phus says merely, adding to the Bible, that David composed songs (cuSat) and hymns (vfjuvoi) to G - d in various meters, some in trimeters a n d others in pentameters (2 Sam. 22:1-23:7 and 1 C h r o n . 16:7 vs. Ant. 7.305). W h e r e a s the Bible says that David and his captains set apart for the service those w h o should prophesy with lyres, harps, and cymbals (1 C h r o n . 25:1), in Josephus, it is David alone w h o makes musical instruments and instructs the Levites in their use (Ant. 7.305-6). Josephus, however, hardly goes so far in this matter as the rabbis, w h o speak of David's poetic genius in superlative terms, even to the point of stating that he recited a p o e m while he was yet in his mother's w o m b (Berakot 10a) and that a h a r p was suspended above his bed that played by itself as soon as midnight came (Berakot 3b). A n o t h e r difference between the J o s e p h a n a n d rabbinic portraits of David is that Josephus does not refer to D a v i d as a student and scholar of Torah. T h e r a b bis, in contrast, emphasize that so great was his devotion to study that he contented himself with sixty breaths of sleep, that is, little m o r e than half an h o u r (Sukkah 2 6 b ) .
23

A P P E A L T O P O L I T I C A L , LITERARY, AND R O M A N T I C

INTERESTS

W h e r e a s the rabbis stress the religious achievements of David, Josephus appeals to the political, literary and romantic interests of his readers. In particular, Josephus felt the need to tone d o w n David's revolutionary ideals, especially as these might conjure up the goals of the revolutionary groups fighting the Romans. Thus, whereas the Bible declares that everyone w h o was in debt o r was discontented gathered a r o u n d David (1 S a m . 22:2), Josephus, a p p a r e n d y realizing that it was just such people w h o h a d j o i n e d the revolutionaries a n d w h o h a d b u r n t the city archives of J e r u s a l e m to destroy the record of debts (War 2.427), omits this statement, mentioning m e r e l y that all w h o w e r e in w a n t (xpela) o r in fear of K i n g Saul j o i n e d him (Ant. 6.247).

gels running to meet him whenever he leaves Paradise in order to present himself to G-d (Beit Hamidrash 5.167-68 and 6.25-26, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:272, n. 128). 23. So great was David's diligence that, according to rabbinic tradition, even the angel of death had to resort to a ruse of distracting him in order to claim him, since the angel was powerless so long as he was studying (Shabbat 30b). Indeed, David's one desire was that it be G-d's will that a traditional statement might be reported in his name in this world (Tevamot 96b-97a). He is depicted as a halakhic authority who was the head of a beth din (Berakot 4a). Indeed, an anonymous rabbi from the period of thefirsttwo centuries C.E . (hence perhaps chronologically contemporaneous with Josephus) is quoted as declaring that Mephibosheth was so called because he humiliated David in Halakhah (Berakot 4a); hence we may assume that, according to rabbinic tradition, David's reputation as a scholar must have been very high.

DAVID

563

Moreover, one of the qualities of the ideal ruler is that he seeks to prevent dissension.
24

Hence, whereas G - d tells David in the biblical version that He will give

S o l o m o n peace (1 C h r o n . 22:9), in Josephus, G - d promises David that He will give S o l o m o n the greatest of all blessings, not only peace but also freedom from civil dissension (ardaeis i^vXioi) (Ant. 7.337). Similarly, w h e n David commends S o l o m o n to the people (1 C h r o n . 28:4), he adds, in Josephus's version, the request that his other sons refrain from civil dissension (fir) crraaid^eiv), n o w that he has chosen S o l o m o n to succeed him, and enjoins the leaders of the people to show obedience (necda)) to S o l o m o n (Ant. 7 . 3 7 2 - 7 3 ) , a quality that, as w e have seen, he himself exemplified (Ant. 6.160). F u r t h e r m o r e , in his charge to Solomon, the biblical David tells him to be strong and of good courage (1 C h r o n . 22:12), whereas J o s e p h u s has him exhort the chiefs of the people to assist him, adding that, should they do so, they will enjoy peace and good o r d e r (evvofila), with which G - d repays pious, j u s t m e n (Ant. 7.341). O n e will recall that evvofila is personified as the daughter of Themis ("Law, Justice," Hesiod, Theogony 902) and is the tide of a p o e m by Tyrtaeus (2, cf. Aristode Politics 5.7.1307A1). J o s e p h u s felt it desirable to appeal not only to the political interests of his readers but also to their literary and especially their dramatic propensities. Thus, J o s e phus builds u p the d r a m a surrounding David's challenge to Goliath and adds to the biblical account that w h e n David h e a r d the Philistine giant reviling and abusing the Israelite army, he became indignant (1 S a m . 17:26 vs. Ant. 6.177). T h e r e is further d r a m a in that David terms Goliath's Philistine followers ofxo^vXoi ("of the same descent," "belonging to the same tribe") (Ant. 6.187), which is n o r m a l l y r e served for J e w s in Josephus but in this case is applied to dogs, w h o are said to be fellow c o u n t r y m e n of the Philistines. T h e d r a m a of David's surprise attack upon the Amalekites (Ant. 6 . 3 6 2 - 6 3 ) is likewise increased by the addition of details not found in the original, w h e r e w e are told that the Amalekites were spread all over the ground, eating and drinking, because of all the great spoil that they h a d taken from the Philistines (1 S a m . 3 0 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) . In Josephus's version, we h e a r that some w e r e at their m o r n i n g meal, while others w e r e already drunk and relaxed with wine and actually regaling themselves with their spoils. T h e gory details that follow are also Josephus's own, namely, that some w e r e surprised at the outspread tables, that streaming blood actually swept the food away, that others were, ironically, even drinking to each

24. Hence, when Abishai urges David to put Shimei to death for revolting (2 Sam. 19:23), Josephus, while having David answer in substantially the same vein as the Bible, uses this political terminology, declaring that the sons of Zeruiah should not stir up new disorders (rapaxai) and dissension (ardais) (Ant. 7.265). Furthermore, whereas the Bible terms Sheba a base fellow (2 Sam. 20:1) and the Septuagint calls him a transgressor (napdvopios), Josephus again uses political language and calls him a lover of dissension (ardaei xatpcoi') (Ant. 7.278), thus, in effect, enduing this biblical scene with a contemporary tinge; i.e., there is here an implied attack upon those who, in his opinion, had sown dissension in Jewish ranks, and whom he attacks so bitterly in books 2 and 7 of the Jewish War and in books 18 and 20 of the Antiquities in discussing the background to the revolution against the Romans in his own day.

564

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

other's health w h e n they w e r e slain, a n d that still others w e r e plunged in a drunken sleep. O n e is reminded of the similar descriptionagain a dramatic J o s e p h a n addition to the Bible (Gen. 1 4 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) a c c o r d i n g to which A b r a h a m slew some of the Assyrians, likewise while they were asleep, whereas he put to flight others w h o w e r e not yet asleep, but w h o , like the Amalekites here, were incapacitated by drunkenness (Ant. 1.177). Josephus's source for his additions m a y well have been Herodotus, w h o has a similar account of Cyrus's victory over his drunken a n d sleeping opponents (1.211). Josephus increases the d r a m a of David's victory over the Amalekites by making it, in an extrabiblical addition to 2 S a m . 1:1, occur on the same day as the batde that resulted in the death of Saul (Ant. 7.1). T h e r e is also increased d r a m a because of the contrast between the defeat of Saul a n d the victory of David, for whereas in the Bible, the r e p o r t of the Amalekite is that m a n y of the people of Saul h a d fallen, Saul and J o n a t h a n a m o n g them (2 S a m . 1:4), in Josephus, the r e p o r t is exaggerated, for w e are told that m a n y tens of thousands of the Hebrews h a d been slain (Ant. 7.2). T h e r e is an increased romantic element almost from the v e r y beginning of Josephus's version of David. Thus, although the Bible says v e r y simply that the w o m e n sang that Saul h a d slain his thousands while David h a d slain his ten thousands (1 S a m . 18:7), Josephus has added a romantic element, namely, that it was (older) w o m e n (yvvaiKes) w h o sang about Saul, whereas it w a s maidens (irapQevoi) w h o sang the praises of David (Ant. 6.193). W h e r e a s the biblical text declares that Michal, Saul's daughter, loved David but gives n o reason for this (1 S a m . 18:20), Josephus the romanticist explains that this was because David h a d shown himself so fortunate (oievirpaycov, "continuing in good fortune," a h a p a x legomenon) in all things by his extraordinary v a l o r that he w o n the h e a r t not only of the people but of the v e r y daughter of the king himself (Ant. 6.196). In addition, Josephus adds the fact that Michal h a d such a great passion for David that it betrayed h e r (Ant. 6 . 1 9 6 , 215). T h e r o m a n c e is heightened by the fact that whereas in the Bible, Saul offers David his older daughter M e r a b as a r e w a r d for his v a l o r (1 S a m . 1 8 : 1 7 - 1 9 ) , Josephus omits the promise of the older daughter a n d romantically highlights David's humble reply to Saul's offer of the younger Michal (Ant. 6 . 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 ) . T h e r e is no biblical parallel for Saul's gallant reply that he desires no m o n e y o r wedding gifts, since that w o u l d be tantamount to selling his daughter rather than giving h e r in marriage, but rather that he wishes in a son-in-law only courage (dvopeia) a n d every other virtue (dperrj) (Ant. 6.200). T h e r e is, as well, considerable romantic amplification of the simple biblical statem e n t that the king desired not a d o w r y but a hundred Philistine foreskins (1 S a m . 18:25). Josephus's version, set forth at considerably greater length, declares that Saul desired neither gold n o r silver but six h u n d r e d Philistine heads, "for to myself no gift could be m o r e desirable [iroQeivorepov] or magnificent [XapLTrporepov] than that" (Ant. 6 . 2 0 1 - 2 ) . T h e r o m a n c e is increased by the fact that David's love for Michal is so great that he proceeds immediately (evOvs) to fulfill Saul's request

DAVID

565

without waiting to deliberate reasonably w h e t h e r the proposed enterprise was possible o r difficult (Ant. 6.203). T h e r o m a n c e is still further increased by the fact that whereas, in the Bible, after David fulfills Saul's request, w e are told that Saul gave him Michal as his wife (1 S a m . 18:27), Josephus portrays a Saul w h o would have liked, even so, to avoid fulfilling his promise, but finally goes through with it because it would have been disgraceful to a p p e a r to have lied o r to have m a d e the offer m e r e l y in o r d e r to bring about David's death on an impossible mission (Ant. 6.204). T h e literate p a g a n r e a d e r would almost certainly have thought here of the tasks imposed u p o n Perseus, upon Bellerophontes, a n d upon Psyche in the famous myths. T h e romantic flavor in Josephus is further accentuated by the suspense inherent in the fact that Michal's n a m e is not mentioned until the v e r y end of the episode (Ant. 6.204). T h e r e is an added romantic element in that whereas Scripture states simply that Michal w a r n e d David that he would be slain if he did not escape immediately (1 S a m . 19:11), Josephus augments the d r a m a by recalling that she was the daughter of the v e r y king w h o was trying to m u r d e r her husband a n d by citing her threat to commit suicide if David should be killed (Ant. 6.215). T h e r e is further r o m a n c e in Michal's prayer that G - d m a y prolong the hours of the night so that h e r husband m a y have m o r e time to escape from h e r father (Ant. 6.216). Josephus adds details to Michal's ingenious stratagem, which she, in h e r passion for her husband, invents, that is, by the manipulation of the liver beneath the bedclothes, she convinces Saul's messengers, w h o h a d been sent by Saul to seize David, that it is David w h o lies there gasping for breath (Ant. 6.217). Josephus, moreover, further elaborates Michal's defense, which in the Bible is simply that David h a d threatened to kill h e r if she would not aid his escape (1 S a m . 19:17). Josephus's Michal adds that he h a d terrified her with his threat, and that she h a d thus acted u n d e r constraint (Ant. 6.219). O f course, the p r i m e example of amplification by Josephus for the sake of increased romantic element is in his version of David's affair with Bathsheba, as noted above. In this, w e m a y contrast the emphasis by the rabbis on David's asceticism, for they p o r t r a y him as slaying the evil inclination by denying himself the pleasures that are permitted by the law (Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 5 . 2 0 c ) .
25

T h e friendship of J o n a t h a n a n d D a v i d is also presented with greater poignancy In contrast to the Bible, w h e r e J o n a t h a n declares that he will speak to his father about David, without any indication of the line of reasoning that he will use (1 Sam. 19:3), Josephus, in a scene reminiscent of Haemon's appeal to his father C r e o n for his beloved Antigone (Sophocles, Antigone 6 8 3 - 7 2 3 ) , spells out the reasoning that J o n a t h a n plans to use, namely, that his father ought not to seek to put to death one w h o h a d rendered so m a n y services to the people and, indeed, to Saul himself (Ant. 6.208). T h e r e is likewise a buildup in the atmosphere surrounding the encounter of father a n d son; for whereas Scripture says nothing about

25. Cf. Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 2.20a, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6: 272, n. 128.

566

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

Saul's m o o d w h e n J o n a t h a n came to him (i S a m . 1 9 : 4 - 5 ) , J o s e p h u s elaborates u p o n the episode a n d adds a touch of irony by describing him as cheerful (lAapov, "happy") a n d joyful (xatpovra, "rejoicing") (Ant 6.209). T h e scene is m o r e effective because J o n a t h a n adds the argument that if Saul w e r e to slay David, he w o u l d be h a r m i n g a kinsman, since he was m a r r i e d to Saul's o w n daughter, w h o would, he points out in a touch of pathos, experience w i d o w h o o d before even embarking on the j o y of w e d d e d life (Ant 6.210). Josephus does much to highlight the friendship of J o n a t h a n with David. Thus, Scripture has J o n a t h a n ask David w h a t he desires him to do for him (1 S a m . 20:4). Josephus adds to David's reply the moving words that he knows that he is r e a d y to grant him any favor o r to do anything in his behalf (Ant 6.226). Indeed, J o n a t h a n is David's alter ego, for to him, too, in an extrabiblical addition, are ascribed the qualities of pity (OIKTOS) a n d friendship (<j)i\ia) (Ant 6.228). A n d yet, Josephus is careful to avoid the implication that the friendship of J o n a t h a n a n d D a v i d was a homosexual love affair. Hence, whereas such a conclusion might have been d r a w n from the scriptural words that J o n a t h a n loved D a v i d as he loved his o w n soul (1 S a m . 18:1; 20:17), Josephus omits this statement completely (Ant 6.193, 232); a n d somewhat later w e h e a r only of Jonathan's affection (evvoia, "empathy," "devotion," "goodwill," "faithfulness") for D a v i d (Ant 6.236). T h a t friendship is, however, dramatized by the fact that whereas, according to the Bible, J o n a t h a n arises from his father's table in fierce anger (1 S a m . 20:34), J o s e phus is much m o r e dramatic, since in his version, J o n a t h a n then (rore) not m e r e l y leaves but rushes (iKirrjoiqaas, morsel. Surely Josephus's version of David's parting from J o n a t h a n is also m o r e poignant. In the Hebrew, w e are told that they kissed one a n o t h e r a n d w e p t together until D a v i d w e p t m o r e than J o n a t h a n (1 S a m . 20:41). J o s e p h u s adds that they bewailed their youth, the companionship that was begrudged t h e m a n d their imminent separation, which, J o s e p h u s remarks, seemed to them nothing less than death itself (Ant 6.241). Again, w h e n D a v i d a n d J o n a t h a n r e n e w their covenant (1 S a m . 23:18), Josephus adds that J o n a t h a n repeated his oath of lifelong mutual affection a n d fidelity a n d invoked curses upon himself should he violate their covenant (Ant 6.276). A n d yet, as w e have noted, Josephus omits the statement of Jonathan's love for David as his o w n soul (1 S a m . 18:1 vs. Ant 6.193), a statement that the Bible repeats (1 S a m . 18:3), as well as the reference to J o n a t h a n ' s stripping off of his clothing a n d giving it to D a v i d (1 S a m . 18:4), presumably because of the embarrassing implications. Instead, Josephus states that J o n a t h a n reverenced D a v i d for his virtue (Ant 6.206). Josephus, on similar grounds, omits the statement in David's elegy for J o n a t h a n that Jonathan's love for him surpassed that of the love of a w o m a n (2 S a m . 1:26 vs. Ant 7.5), presumably since the r e a d e r might have suspected a homosexual relationship, which Josephus's J e w i s h readers, at least, "leaps forth") from the feast (Ant 6.239). Josephus adds that he passed the night in tears, being prevented by grief from tasting a

DAVID

567

might have found distasteful, in view of the Pentateuch's strict prohibition of such a practice (Lev. 18:22). Finally, while it is true, as remarked, that Josephus is careful not to build up the portrait of David unduly in o r d e r to avoid the aggrandizement of the figure w h o was to be the forefather of the political messiah destined to overthrow the R o m a n Empire, nonetheless he is careful to omit the unseemly details of David's pretending to be a m a d m a n , w h o , according to Scripture, scrabbled on the doors of the gate in G a t h a n d let his spittle fall d o w n upon his beard (1 S a m . 2 1 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) . In J o s e phus's version, David foams at the m o u t h a n d displays "all the other symptoms of madness" but without specifying details (Ant. 6.245).

SUMMARY A p r i m a r y reason for Josephus's amplification of David's virtues is to answer antiJ e w i s h attacks; but he m a y also simply be alerting his G r a e c o - R o m a n readers a n d his Hellenistic J e w i s h compatriots to the virtues that he insists his J e w i s h contemporaries possessed in their o w n right. Thus, he stresses David's wealth, presumably because the J e w s w e r e accused by such satirists as M a r t i a l a n d J u v e n a l of being a nation of beggars. In particular, he stresses the courage of David, as he does that of the other biblical heroes, because the J e w s h a d been reproached with cowardice by such notorious J e w - b a i t e r s as Apollonius M o l o n . Josephus also stresses David's hospitality, unselfishness, generosity, gratefulness, and humanity, again because the J e w s h a d been charged with hatred of the h u m a n race by such calumniators as Apollonius M o l o n a n d Lysimachus. Moreover, he notes the stress placed by D a v i d on the avoidance of political dissension (ardais), which h a d cost the J e w s so heavily in the w a r against the Romans. F u r t h e r m o r e , there is, in o r d e r to make the narrative m o r e appealing to his readers, an increased romantic element, especially in Josephus's amplification of the love of David a n d Michal a n d of the friendship of J o n a t h a n a n d David. A n d yet J o s e p h u s is careful not to praise David in overwhelming terms; a n d w h e n his status is elevated, it is not so much for his o w n sake as to answer the J e w haters o r to increase the d r a m a of the situation. Moreover, whereas he has downg r a d e d the divine element in the achievements of his other biblical heroes, J o s e phus emphasizes that David's accomplishments are due to divine assistance. J o s e p h u s has diminished the importance of David as king both in the sheer length of his general treatment a n d of his final encomium, especially as c o m p a r e d with K i n g Saul, and, m o r e important, in terms of qualities of character. T h e following explanations for his doing so suggest themselves: (1) Josephus himself was descended from the H a s m o n e a n kings, rather than from the line of David. (2) D a v i d was extremely important for Christianity as the ancestor of the messiah, a n d while it is true that Jesus himself appears to assert that the messiah is not descended from David (cf. M a t t . 2 2 : 4 1 - 4 5 , M a r k 1 3 : 3 5 - 5 1 , Luke 2 0 : 4 1 - 4 4 ) , a n d some

j68

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

of his contemporaries ( J o h n 7:4142) are said to be u n a w a r e of a connection of Jesus with the House of David, nonetheless, by the time of Paul, Christians already believed that Jesus was descended from the family of David (Rom. 1:3), so that the Gospels (Matt. 1:117; Luke 3:23-38) have genealogies, differing to be sure in details, but agreeing in deriving Jesus' descent from David. Hence, to counteract the importance of David for the Christians, Josephus m a y have diminished his significance, just as, we m a y guess, he m a y have reacted against the claims of Christianity in his original version of the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 1 8 . 6 3 - 6 4 ) (see Feldman 1965, 9 : 4 8 - 5 1 on Ant. 1 8 . 6 3 - 6 4 ; a n d 1 9 8 2 , 1 7 9 - 9 9 , 2 8 8 - 9 3 )
a n

d even possibly in his

version of the Flood story, in which he omits any reference to a covenant (SiadrjKr)) between G - d and m a n , so important for Christianity, as A n d r e Paul (1985, 4 7 3 - 8 0 ) has suggested. Hence, Josephus develops the passage in Ruth about David's genealogy just enough to give him a distinguished ancestry but without stressing it unduly. T h e diminished emphasis on miracles in David's career m a y likewise perhaps be seen as a reply to Christians, w h o emphasized Jesus' miracles, and m a y be in line with the point of view expressed in the story of R a b b i Eliezer, w h o appealed to miracles, yet was overruled and even excommunicated (Baba Me&a 59b). (3) He has omitted all reference to David as ancestor of the messiah, despite the fact that such a tradition was a p p a r e n d y widespread in his era, because he wished to stress to his Hellenistic J e w i s h readers his o w n repugnance for the concept o f an independent J e w i s h state. To the extent that his R o m a n patrons were a w a r e of the beliefs of J e w i s h messianism, they would have objected to a p o litical figure w h o would seek to reestablish an independent J e w i s h state, precisely the goal of the revolutionaries against R o m e in Josephus's o w n day, w h o m he attacks so bitterly T h e fact that David is spoken of as avdos ("tawny") might remind the r e a d e r of Esau, whose pottage is similarly described by Josephus; and hence this might associate David with the Romans, the descendants of Esau, according to rabbinic tradition. (4) Josephus's downplaying of David, to some degree, m a y reflect a m o r e general stance, as seen in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities
27 26

and in

some of rabbinic l i t e r a t u r e . W e m a y note, in particular, the stories of Josephus's

26. See, however, Mendels 1992, 2 6 1 - 7 5 , who notes that although Pseudo-Philo, like most of the Jews of his time, has messianic hopes, he seems to be against a messiah in the present. Mendels argues that even the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 16:13-20; Mark 8:23-26, 9:2-13,10:47-52), which are full of messianic allusions, nevertheless tone down messianism. There can be litde doubt, nevertheless, that by the time of Josephus, there was vigorous expectation of a Davidic messiah, at least in certain circles, as we can see in a number of documentsthe Qumran scrolls, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Psalms of Solomon. See Collins 1987, 104-5. 27. Neusner 1987c, 265-82, concludes that the messiah idea has no place of consequence in the Mishnah, although he admits that it later became a driving force in rabbinic circles. Cf. Schifmian 1987, 235-46, esp. 242, who comments on the lack of emphasis on messianism in Tannaitic materials, and suggests that "the experience of the destruction of the nation and its cult center in the first revolt [66-74], d prohibition of even visiting the ruins of Jerusalem in the second, must have led the sages to seek other means for the immediate redemption of Israel."
a n m e

DAVID

569

contemporaries R a b b i J o h a n a n ben Zakkai a n d J o s h u a ben Hananiah, w h o sought a modus vivendi with the R o m a n s a n d hence w e r e eager not to antagonize them with talk of a messianic king. Such downgrading m a y also be seen in J o s e phus's use of the t e r m "lad" in referring to David at the time of his being anointed king. Josephus's portrait of D a v i d is thus a n important a n d typical reflection of c o n t e m p o r a r y considerationspolitical, religious, a n d c u l t u r a l t h a t influenced his entire a p p r o a c h to historiography.
28

28. I should like to express my sincere thanks to Harold W. Attridge and David Flusser for most helpful comments on this chapter.

Вам также может понравиться